Opinion
C.A. No.: N14C-10-155 FSS
11-19-2015
JIM HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL KENNY, BRUCE EVAN LEIBU, Defendants.
cc: Prothonotary (Civil Division) Thomas P. Leff, Esquire Brian V. DeMott, Esquire Jim Hunter, pro se, Plaintiff
ORDER
Upon Defendants= Renewed Motion to Compel B
GRANTED.
1. This should be a relatively straightforward personal injury case stemming from an automobile collision. The situation has deteriorated, however, because Plaintiff's counsel withdrew on March 17, 2015. The problems have been compounded by the fact that now-pro se Plaintiff is a sentenced inmate.
2. Through a series of motions, Defendants have sought potentially relevant information from Plaintiff and, most importantly, tried to nail-down whether Plaintiff has a medical expert. Without an expert, Planitiff cannot prove that his injury was proximately caused by the collision, which is an essential element of his case.
3. On November 17, 2015, the court sent a letter to Plaintiff concerning the need for Plaintiff to not only identify his expert witness, but also to demonstrate that he has retained the expert and that the expert is available for discovery and trial.
4. Meanwhile, Defendants have moved to compel Plaintiff to provide answers to Defendants' second set of interrogatories. Defendants complain that Plaintiff has not answered five, specific interrogatories.
5. In response to Defendants' motion to compel, on October 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a short submission. As to Defendants' Questions (1), (2), and (5), Plaintiff has responded "N/A." As to Question (3), Plaintiff responded "asked & answered per Jan. 19, 2015 interrogatories per Question #7." As to question (4), Plaintiff responded, "asked & answered per Jan. 19, 2015 interrogatories via questions # 27, 28 & 29."
6. The court has reviewed the questions and Plaintiff's cross-references. Defendants' explanation as to why Plaintiff's responses are insufficient, which is Paragraph 8 of Defendants' motion, is correct. If, for example, Plaintiff has not been convicted of a felony, he must say that in plain words. "N/A" is not an acceptable response. Otherwise, he has to give details. Similarly, Question 3 in the second set of interrogatories asks about claims, not consultation. And so on.
For the foregoing reasons:
A. Plaintiff SHALL provide full and satisfactory responses to Defendants' second set of interrogatories on or before December 31, 2015.
B. Before then, Plaintiff SHALL identify the names of all Plaintiff's expert(s), including but not limited to any medical expert, and provide the date on which the expert was retained, meaning the date the expert agreed to provide an expert opinion to Plaintiff. If Plaintiff has not retained an expert, he SHALL provide the name of any expert he is in contact with, the date he first contacts the expert, and a reasonable, yet firm, date by which he will retain the expert.
C. Again, Plaintiff is cautioned that a doctor who merely has treated him as a treating physician is not an expert witness. A treating physician will tell the jury what medical condition he diagnosed and the services he performed. A medical expert will address whether the medical condition was caused by the collision.
If Plaintiff fails to provide adequate responses to the motion to compel, Defendants may ask for sanctions, which if they are not paid may lead to the case's dismissal. If Plaintiff fails to identify a medical expert as ordered before and above, Defendants have leave to file for summary judgment.
D. This order SHALL be obeyed strictly, upon pain of sanctions and possible dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff is asking the court to award him money, which the court will consider if Plaintiff does not impose unreasonably on counsel and other litigants who also are entitled to the court's consideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: November 19, 2015
/s/ Fred S. Silverman
Judge cc: Prothonotary (Civil Division)
Thomas P. Leff, Esquire
Brian V. DeMott, Esquire
Jim Hunter, pro se, Plaintiff