Court Opinion

ID: 9706770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:51:14.518659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:24.862928
License: Public Domain

Mallett, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority and agree with the analysis contained in part ii of the opinion. I do not *363believe, however, that "where there is a legitimate concern over the discovery of irrelevant data, the possibility of undue influence, or the threat of breach of the physician’s ethical duty, the party asserting the privilege could always establish the proper parameters for questioning through a protective order”1 in the absence of an ex parte interview notice requirement. To ensure absolutely the party’s ability to secure when necessary a protective order, the party seeking to schedule the ex parte interview should at the very least provide notice. Requiring notice would not frustrate discovery and would provide a firm basis for the mutual expectation of business professionalism.

 Ante, p 362.