Melton v. Sollami
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-03247
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Melton v. Sollami, Magistrate Judge Cave denied Lisa Melton’s request to treat Dr. Rose as an expert witness.
Lisa Melton and her treating physician, Dr. Louis Rose, were affected by the limits on Dr. Rose’s deposition testimony and compensation.
What happened
Melton v. Sollami involved a dispute about the deposition of Lisa Melton’s treating physician, Dr. Louis Rose. The parties asked the court to address their discovery issues before the scheduled deposition.
The court ordered that Dr. Rose could testify only as a treating physician. He could give medical opinions about Melton’s injuries and their causes, but only if those opinions were based on his examination, diagnosis, and treatment of her. The court denied Melton’s request to treat him as an expert witness at that late stage of discovery.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave also ruled that Dr. Rose’s deposition compensation was limited to $40 plus mileage and directed the Clerk of Court to close the parties’ letter-motion.
The detailed version
- Melton v. Sollami · No. 1:19-cv-03247
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 21, 2020
Background
The court held a telephone conference about the issues raised in the parties’ joint letter-motion seeking a conference or full briefing on discovery matters. The conference concerned the deposition of Plaintiff Lisa Melton’s treating physician, Dr. Louis Rose, which was scheduled for January 22, 2020.
Ruling
The court ordered that Dr. Rose would testify solely as a treating physician. It stated that he could testify about medical opinions concerning Melton’s injuries and the causes of those injuries, so long as he did not rely on information outside his examination, diagnosis, and treatment of Melton.
The court denied Melton’s request to treat Dr. Rose, described as her fact witness, as an expert witness at that late stage of discovery. The court also stated that, as a treating physician, Dr. Rose’s deposition compensation was limited to the compensation allowed under 18 U.S.C. § 1821: $40 plus mileage.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No. 27, the parties’ letter-motion. The order was entered on January 21, 2020.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it resolved discovery and deposition issues rather than deciding the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.