Court Opinion

ID: 9682339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:09:37.060878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:38.816710
License: Public Domain

*361TODD, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Discovery is designed to enable each party to bring before the court all available evidence favorable to his cause and to be aware in advance of evidence which may be presented by his adversary.
Defendants ask that discovery be enlarged to inform them of the names of persons who may have expressed an opinion but who will not testify. Defendants profess to need this information in order to evaluate the strength of plaintiffs’ case and thus determine what if any out of court settlement to offer.
Plaintiffs respond that, because of fear of professional retaliation, their consultants required a pledge that their names would not be disclosed and that they would not be required to testify.
Shall the courts accept at face value the innocent protestations of defendants and grant them access to a name, thereby forcing plaintiffs’ counsel to betray a promise to his medical counsellors, or shall the courts deny defendants the name of the counsellor to protect the promise of counsel from betrayal and protect the medical counsellors from the retaliation they fear?
The time has come for restraint of the pervasive spread of discovery to the inconvenience and damage of innocent third parties. It is enough that citizens must be submitted to inconvenience in order to serve the need of the courts for information and the need of parties to avoid surprise as to testimony. It is too much to impose upon innocent third parties to gratify the curiosity or far fetched motives of litigants.
I recognize and respect the problems of professional men, especially of the medical profession, who wish to be helpful, but not to the extent of incurring the wrath of the profession.
To me this consideration more than counterbalances any slight extra-judicial benefit the defendants might derive from the desired information.
At the very least, the ruling of the majority should be prospective only, and should not affect any pledge of confidentiality made prior to the announcement of the ruling.
I would reverse the order of the Trial Judge and deny the discovery.