Court Opinion

ID: 9855568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:27:24.893212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:12.827117
License: Public Domain

BROOKS, Presiding Judge, specially
concurring:
I do not disagree with the majority’s analysis and balancing of the various policy considerations that are brought into play when informal methods of discovery are pursued in a medical malpractice action. However, I would end the inquiry and dispose of this special action without announcing a rule by judicial fiat, leaving that matter within the rule-making power of our supreme court. See Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 5(5). That court would then have the benefit of the input contemplated by A.R.S. § 12-110.1 *278■ m tne case at hand, it is sufficient to hold that since no Arizona statute or rule currently prohibits defense counsel from engaging in ex parte conferences with the plaintiff’s treating physicians, no sanctions should have been imposed on petitioners’ counsel at this stage of the proceedings. However, as pointed out in the majority opinion, should it later appear that the ex parte discussions resulted in the disclosure of information that could not have been obtained through formal discovery, appropriate sanctions could be considered.

. A.R.S. § 12-110 provides:
A. The state bar, or a representative group selected by the bar, shall act as an advisory board and shall either voluntarily or upon request of a majority of the judges of the supreme court, consult with, recommend to or advise the court on any matter dealt with or proposed to be dealt with in the rules.
B. Any member of the state bar or a private citizen may object in writing to a rule or part thereof and may request changes. The court shall consider the objections and re*278quests as advice and information only and may act thereon at its discretion.