Opinion
C.A. No. 04C-09-032 WLW.
Submitted: April 15, 2005.
Decided: April 27, 2005.
Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument. Denied.
I. Barry Guerke, Esquire of Parkowski Guerke Swayze, P.A., Dover, Delaware; attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Stephen P. Casarino, Esquire of Casarino, Christman Shalk, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; attorneys for the Defendant.
ORDER
This is a Rule 16.1 arbitration case arising from an automobile accident. Defendant answered the Form 30 Interrogatories by identifying two eyewitnesses who provided USAA Casualty Insurance Company with recorded statements. On January 17, 2005, Plaintiff requested copies of these witness statements. On January 24, 2005, Defendant informed Plaintiff that the witness statements would not be produced because all discovery is stayed in an arbitration case until a trial de novo is requested. On March 9, 2005, Plaintiff attempted to subpoena the documents containing the witness statements. Defendant has refused to comply with the subpoena contending that the proper method of obtaining documents from his insurance carrier is to file a motion for production. More important, Defendant contends that all discovery is stayed in arbitration hearings until a party requests a trial de novo. Plaintiff filed a motion for contempt claiming that USAA Casualty Insurance Company should be held in contempt for not complying with its subpoena.
DISCUSSION
On April 15, 2005, at oral argument, Plaintiff contended that a party is always able to use compulsory process in connection with any adversary proceedings including an arbitration under Rule 16.1. Plaintiff contends that subpoenaing documents (or witnesses for that matter) for the actual hearing is not "discovery" precluded by the terms of Superior Court Civil Rule 16.1 (j). Accordingly, Plaintiff argues that USAA should be held in contempt for noncompliance with the subpoena and be ordered to comply.
Defendant contends that Rule 16.1 (j) stays discovery in arbitration hearings until a trial de novo is requested. Defendant contends that the issuance of a subpoena to obtain the statement is a violation of the arbitration rule and an attempt to evade the rules of discovery. Limited by Rule 16.1, this Court agreed with Defendant and remains convinced of the correctness of this ruling.
Rule 16.1 (j) provides:
(j) Discovery. The parties may serve and file motions and discovery as allowed by the Superior Court Civil Rules; provided, however, that all responses thereto, except as provided under Section (e) above, shall be stayed until a request for trial de novo is filed as provided by these rules.
This rule unequivocally permits Defendant to withhold any production of Plaintiff's discovery requests for such documents until a trial de novo is requested. It is of course true that Defendant is required to produce any exhibits, including statements of witnesses, that it intends to present at the arbitration hearing at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Although Plaintiff argues that such statements are not "discovery" within the meaning of the rule, this Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff's contention. The right of one party to compel the production of documents from another party is subject to context. In the case sub judice, the proper method to obtain witnesses statements from the Defendant is governed by Rule 34 and not Rule 45. Plaintiff believes that this Court has either overlooked or misapprehended the law or facts which would change the outcome of the decision (citation omitted). Plaintiff asks the Court to order USAA Casualty Insurance Company (a non-party) to produce the statements of two witnesses at the arbitration hearing to be held on April 28, 2005.
Davis v. Town of Georgetown, 2001 WL 541471, at *3 (Del.Super.).
A hyper-technical reading of the rule would appear to allow Plaintiff to subpoena documents from Defendant's insurance carrier. Other subsections of Rule 16.1 refer to Rule 45 to procure records of health providers so the use of Rule 45 is not excluded. The use of Rule 45 for the purpose sought by the Plaintiff contravenes the spirit and purpose of arbitration for an expedient resolution of the case.
This Court will not permit Plaintiff to use a Rule 45 Subpoena to circumvent the discovery prohibitions in arbitration hearings governed by Rule 16.1. Accordingly, Defendant is not required to comply with the subpoena and Plaintiff's motion for reargument is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.