Opinion
C.A. No. 01C-05-028
June 11, 2002
David J. Weidman, Esquire, Georgetown, Delaware.
J. Scott Shannon, Esquire, Tighe Cottrell Logan, Wilmington, DE.
Dear Counsel:
Last Friday, a number of rulings were made concerning the discovery phase of this litigation. The reasons for the rulings are stated on the record but I want to summarize them in writing for the convenience of all.
Defendant's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order
This motion was granted. The pretrial scheduling order remains in effect except for the limited modification. In this regard, the discovery completion date was extended until October 12, 2002. Plaintiffs shall identify their experts by July 12, 2002 and provide reports within 21 calendar days to the defense. Defendant shall identify its experts by August 12, 2002 and provide reports within 21 calendar days to Plaintiffs.
Defendant's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions
This motion was granted in part and denied in part as follows:
(i) The plaintiffs who claim mental anguish, emotional distress and mental injury are required to submit to a Rule 35(a) examination. The length of the examination for each plaintiff shall be limited to one (1) day absent a showing of good cause for further examination. The defense shall submit a letter to the Court by Friday, June 14 detailing the nature of the proposed examination. Plaintiffs may respond by Wednesday, June 19.
(ii) The defense request to renotice the deposition of plaintiff Donna L. Sinnamon to revisit her 200 page logbook was denied. Ms. Sinnamon may be deposed on unrelated matters.
(iii) The defense motion pertaining to overdue discovery was granted. All outstanding discovery shall be provided by July 12, 2002. Plaintiffs who claim economic injury shall provide the information requested in Defendant's Third Request for Production of Documents, No. 24. Should any discovery not be provided by July 12, the defense may seek sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal of the suit.
Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order
Pertinent rulings on the motion were as follows:
(i) The request to limit mental examinations of the plaintiffs by effectively requiring plaintiffs' prior approval of neuropsychological evaluations was denied. The Court reserves the right to refine the examination depending upon the information presented by the defense on June 14.
(ii) The request to extend written discovery responses for an additional period of time beyond July 12 was denied.
(iii) The Court, after reviewing deposition extracts, limited the retaking of the Donna L. Sinnamon deposition on the logbook but not as to other matters.
Closure
The civil rules and case law regarding deposition proceedings were discussed. Given these well established principles, no further action is necessary on this subject.
IT IS SO ORDERED.