Court Opinion

ID: 9533281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:30:11.115144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:59.798725
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE HASWELL,
(specially concurring):
I concur in the foregoing opinion and what is said therein with one exception to which this separate opinion is directed.
The district judge, by court order dated April 28, 1970, not only held that the physician-patient privilege was waived as between plaintiff and Doctors Lensink and Casebeer, but also *526ordered that “the law firm representing the Defendant be permitted to interview Doctors Lensink and Casebeer outside the presence of counsel for the Plaintiff * # The vice of this order lies in barring plaintiff’s counsel from knowledge of the fruits of her adversary’s discovery under Rule 35 thereby opening the way for surprise at the trial. If the purpose of Rule 35 and the other discovery rules in the Montana Code of Civil Procedure is to facilitate a search for the truth and to prevent surprise at the trial, how is such purpose promoted by a court order authorizing secret interviews between defense counsel and plaintiff’s medical witnesses? I believe it the duty of this Court to sound off loud and clear in condemning such orders.
I consider the error to have been harmless under the circumstances of this particular case as the record amply demonstrates no surprise to plaintiff.