Opinion
367899
11-22-2023
Vitore Guri v. Michael Kenneth Czado
LC No. 2022-197224-NI
Mark J. Cavanagh Presiding Judge, Elizabeth L. Gleicher, Sima G. Patel Judges
ORDER
The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), in lieu of granting the application for leave to appeal, the Court VACATES the May 25, 2023 order of the Oakland County Circuit Court and REMANDS for reconsideration of defendants' request for a qualified protective order allowing ex parte interviews with plaintiff's healthcare providers. The trial court erred by concluding that caselaw permitting ex parte interviews-i.e., Holman v Rasak, 486 Mich. 429; 785 N.W.2d 98 (2010) and Szpak v Inyang, 290 Mich.App. 711; 803 N.W.2d 904 (2010)-was inapplicable simply because those cases involved medical-malpractice claims rather than the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101, et seq. Ex parte interviews during discovery are not limited to the medical-malpractice context. Davis v Dow Corning Corp, 209 Mich.App. 287, 293; 530 N.W.2d 178 (1995). Instead, ex parte interviews are permitted "based upon this state's broad policy favoring far-reaching, open, and effective discovery practice, applicable in all types of civil litigation, and the conclusion that ex parte discovery interviews appear to advance those well-recognized policy goals." Id. The trial court also erred by concluding that MCL 500.3159 applied to defendants' discovery request and required defendants to make a showing of good cause for ex parte interviews. MCL 500.3159 only applies when there is "a dispute regarding an insurer's right to discovery ...." (Emphasis added). Neither defendant Michael Czado nor defendant Andersen Windows, Inc., are insurers, and as such, their discovery requests are not subject to the good-cause requirements in MCL 500.3159. On remand, the trial court shall reconsider defendants' discovery request in keeping with Holman and Szpak.
This order has immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2).
We do not retain jurisdiction.