Doe v. Helen Hayes Hospital

Background

The parties jointly presented a dispute about the plaintiff’s disclosures concerning eight treating providers: Lehn, Meara, Tillinghast, Quail, Cooperman, Mondschein, Patilal, and Krichmar. The plaintiff identified the providers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C), which governs certain disclosures by witnesses who are not retained experts, and served subpoenas seeking their depositions.

The defendants argued that the eight providers were fact witnesses rather than expert witnesses. They contended that the plaintiff’s disclosures described only the providers’ treatment, assessments, diagnoses, and goals, and that the plaintiff was attempting to use expert disclosures and subpoenas to conduct additional fact discovery after the fact-discovery deadline had expired. The defendants also argued that the disclosures did not adequately summarize the providers’ opinions or explain how those opinions were formed for trial testimony. They further asserted that the proposed testimony was either irrelevant or unnecessarily repetitive given the medical records and prior depositions.

The plaintiff argued that the depositions were needed because testimony from other depositions revealed information that was not documented in the medical records. According to the plaintiff, one defendant testified that the treating providers had recommended a course of treatment, and another discussed possible effects of COVID-19 on Dr. Quail’s neuropsychological examination. The plaintiff argued that the treating providers themselves were the only sources for some of this information and that the depositions were permitted under the federal rules governing depositions and discovery.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated the eight providers as treating physicians or other treatment providers whose expected testimony concerned facts acquired and opinions formed during their consultations with the plaintiff. The court noted that the plaintiff’s own letter described them as “non-expert fact witnesses.”

Because the court found that the providers were fact witnesses, it concluded that the plaintiff was seeking additional fact discovery rather than true expert discovery. The court stated that fact discovery had expired and that the plaintiff had had ample opportunity to obtain the information through discovery. It therefore declined to grant leave under Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i) for depositions of the eight providers.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ application to strike the eight expert disclosures and the accompanying deposition subpoenas. It denied any application for a stay as moot in light of those rulings. The opinion does not state a separate disposition of the underlying case or claims.