Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #255896; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Smolenski, and Talbot; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Issuance of Court Orders in Discovery Disputes [3159]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict for plaintiff, finding the trial court properly struck defendant’s expert witness after defendant failed to completely answer interrogatories regarding the expert.
Plaintiff sued defendant after defendant discontinued plaintiff’s no-fault benefits following an independent medical examination. After defendant failed to timely answer plaintiff’s interrogatories regarding the doctor who performed the IME, the trial court ordered defendant to provide full and complete answers within 14 days. Two weeks after the 14 day period expired, defendant filed answers in which it stated that three questions were logistically impossible to answer and the answer to another question was unavailable. These questions pertained to how many times defendant retained the doctor as an expert in the last three years; the doctor’s fee for her professional services and for the deposition; and the income the defendant had earned as an expert in the past three years. The trial court ordered the defendant to provide answers to these questions. When defendant again failed to provide complete answers, the trial court struck the doctor from testifying at trial.
In affirming the jury verdict, the Court of Appeals held the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it struck defendant’s witness. The sanction was proper because defendant impeded discovery by failing to provide complete answers to interrogatories. Moreover, plaintiff’s interrogatory regarding the amount the doctor earned from testifying as an expert witness was not overly broad, of questionable relevance, and unanswerable. In this regard, the court explained:
“Contrary to defendant’s assertion that plaintiff’s interrogatory required Dr. DeSantis to disclose all of her personal income, this Court noted in its dismissal of defendant’s application for leave that plaintiff’s interrogatory ‘[d]id not make such a broad request.’ Regarding relevancy, the Michigan Supreme Court has held that an expert witness’s history of testifying for a particular class of parties is minimally suggestive of bias and therefore relevant. . . . Most importantly, though, defendant was well aware of the potential sanction for failing to provide full and complete answers to the interrogatories and, therefore, should have challenged the form of the question before refusing to comply with the trial court order. As a result, the trial court’s discovery sanction was proper and not an abuse of discretion.”
