Harrison v. Newman
ORDER AND OPINION granting 56 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The Court ORDERS Defendant to produce all materials responsive to Exhibit A of the subpoena(Dkt. No. 56-1 at 5), except for materials provided for in camera review in accordance with this Order. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 9/26/2017.(sshe, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Civil Action No. 2:16-2919-RMG
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents
subject to a subpoena. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion to compel.
On May 17, 2014, Plaintiff was injured while on a boat owned and operated by Defendant.
Plaintiff alleges the injury occurred when Defendant activated the electric windlass while Plaintiff
was assisting with the anchor, causing a crush injury to Plaintiff's right ring finger. To treat the
injury, Plaintiff received a tetanus shot and surgery to repair the finger. Plaintiff alleges that after
the initial treatment, his health drastically declined and that he was diagnosed with transverse
myelitis. Plaintiff's treating neurologist, Dr. Craig Woodard, determined that an adverse reaction
to the tetanus shot was the cause of the transverse myelitis.
Plaintiff filed this action in admiralty on August 24, 2016. On May 3, 2017, Defendant
moved for an independent medical examination under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, to be conducted by Dr. Paul Pritchard at the Medical University of South Carolina
("MUSC"). The Court granted that motion (as to Dr. Pritchard) on May 19, 2017. Defendant
produced Dr. Pritchard's report shortly after June 13, 2017. (Dkt. No. 56 at 2.) On August 7,
2017, Plaintiff subpoenaed "Dr. Pritchard' s complete file. " (Id.) Defendant objects the documents
sought are protected under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because Dr. Pritchard
is a defense expert retained for trial preparation.
The work product doctrine protects from discovery any "documents and tangible things
that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for [a] party or its representative
(including the ... party' s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent)." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A). The party claiming work product protection has the burden of establishing
entitlement to the protection. Jn re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 626 (4th Cir. 1988). For
the work product doctrine to apply, " [t]he document must be prepared because of the prospect of
litigation when the preparer faces an actual claim or a potential claim follo wing an actual event or
series of events that reasonably could result in litigation." Nat 'l Union Fire Ins. Co. ofPittsburgh,
Pa. v. Murray Sheet Metal Co., 967 F.2d 980, 984 (4th Cir. 1992). The proponent of work product
protection must establish that the "driving force behind the preparation of each requested
document" is the prospect of litigation. Id.
Regarding experts employed only for trial preparation, Rule 26(b)(4)(D) provides,
" [o]rdinarily, a party may not, by interrogatories or deposition, discover facts known or opinions
held by an expert who has been retained or specifically employed by another party in anticipation
oflitigation or to prepare for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A). The rule provides two exceptions: "as provided in Rule 35(b)" and "on
showing exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party to obtain facts or
opinions on the same subject by other means." (Id.) Under Rule 35, the party requesting the
examination (here, the Defendant) must on request deliver "a copy of the examiner's report,
together with like reports of all earlier examinations of the same condition." Fed. R. Civ. P.
Defendant' s objection to the subpoena is without merit. The Rule 35(b) exception plainly
applies to the Rule 26(b )(4)(D) trial preparation protection Defendant asserts.
" ' The plain
language of Rule 35(b) does not limit disclosure to only final reports submitted by the examiners
and makes no distinction between draft reports and final reports. Other courts have ordered
disclosure of draft reports and other materials relied upon by Rule 35 examiners . . . ."' Wellin v.
Wellin , No. 2:13-CV-1831-DCN, 2015 WL 1414524, at *2 (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2015). " [C]ourts
have noted that Rule 35 and the adversary process provide other safeguards for plaintiffs who
submit to Rule 35 examinations. Plaintiffs receive a Rule 35 examination report and then have
the opportunity to depose the physician, cross-examine him or her, and introduce contrary expert
evidence." Feinman v. Cunningham , No. CIV.A. DKC-08-3376, 2009 WL 2499717, at *2 (D.
Md. Aug. 12, 2009) (quoting Tarte v. United States, 249 F.R.D. 856, 859 (S.D. Fla. 2008)
(emphasis added)) . Effective exercise of those safeguards necessarily requires production of the
Rule 35 examiner' s examination notes, list of materials relied upon, prior testimony, time records
related to the examination, etc. For that reason, moreover, Defendant waived work product
protections under Rule 26(b)(3) with regard to Dr. Pritchard ' s opinions when Defendant
successfully moved for a Rule 35 examination conducted by Dr. Pritchard.
Defendant has asked, "To the extent that the Court does not deny Plaintiffs Motion,
Defendant prays that the Court (a) conduct an in camera review of the responsive documents."
(Dkt. No. 58 at 7.) Rule 26(b)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that " [i]f
the court orders discovery of [trial preparation] materials, it must protect against disclosure of the
mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other
representative concerning the litigation." Defendant therefore may provide for in camera review
those documents Defendant believes in good faith contain "the mental impressions, conclusions,
opinions, or legal theories" of Defendant's attorney within seven days of the date of this Order.
Defendant should not provide for review materials that merely provide the conclusions or opinions
of Dr. Pritchard.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to compel (Dkt. No. 56).
The Court ORDERS Defendant to produce all materials responsive to Exhibit A of the subpoena
(Dkt. No. 56-1 at 5), except for materials provided for in camera review in accordance with this
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court Judge
September J-b, 201 7
Charleston, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?