Court Opinion

ID: 9511622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:06:24.82345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:06.534292
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RICE
specially concurring.
¶41 I concur with the Court’s opinion, and offer the following with regard to Issue #1.
¶42 Five days before the deadline for disclosing expert witnesses, Defendant’s counsel wrote Plaintiffs counsel, requesting that the Plaintiff undergo an IME, which had been *129scheduled with Dr. Taylor for later in the month. Plaintiffs counsel refused to participate in the IME because “the deadline is upon us” and the IME proposal was “not workable.” In its order denying Defendant’s motion for an IME and for extension of the disclosure deadline, the District Court appears to have endorsed Plaintiffs refusal to participate, reasoning that the purpose of scheduling deadlines is to prevent “the difficulties inherent in coordinating an IME at the last minute.” See ¶ 11.
¶43 I would merely offer that this opinion is about the sufficiency and timeliness of the actions which Defendant took after Plaintiff refused to participate in the requested IME. It says nothing about the validity of Plaintiffs refusal to participate in the near-deadline, yet timely, requested IME in the first place or about the validity of the District Court’s rationale which approved the same.