|
|
OAH 15-1700-18042-2 |
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RIGHTS
|
In the Matter of the State of v. |
ORDER
DENYING EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY |
Appearances: Margaret Jacot, Assistant Attorney General,
The discovery deadline in this matter was December 12, 2007. On that date, the Department received Respondent’s Supplemental Answers to Complainant’s Interrogatories and Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents. In its response, the Respondent disclosed that it intended to call Boyd Beccue to testify as an expert in this proceeding. On December 26, 2007, the Department filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Extend the Scheduling Deadlines, asserting that it needed additional time to conduct discovery “to obtain further information regarding the qualifications of Respondent’s expert and the bases of his opinion in order to fully prepare for trial,” and requested that the discovery deadline be extended to January 7, 2008.
On January 4, 2008, the Respondent filed its response opposing the motion on the basis that its expert disclosure was timely and complete.
Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable pursuant to Rule 26.02(a) and acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as follows:
(1)(A) A party may through interrogatories require any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.
(B) Upon motion, the court may order further discovery by other means, subject to such restrictions as to scope and such provisions, pursuant to Rule 26.02(d)(3), concerning fees and expenses, as the court may deem appropriate.
Thus, ordinarily, one must look to determine if the party that expects to call the witness has given fair notice of the identity of the witness, that person’s qualifications, the substance of the witness’s opinions, and bases for them. As stated in the comments to the rule, “if the interrogatory is fully answered, the court normally should not order further discovery of the expert’s opinion.”[1]
In this instance, the Respondent has provided detailed information about the expert, his qualifications, information that formed the basis of his opinions, and the opinions that he will offer. The Respondent has provided sufficient information for the Department to prepare for hearing. Under the circumstances, and absent any greater specificity about what the Department would like to learn, the request for extension is denied.
If there is specific additional information that the Department believes would be helpful, it is acceptable for the Department to make an informal request for additional information, and the Respondent should respond if the request is not burdensome and would not require the Respondent to incur expense beyond what is anticipated to prepare for hearing. If there are specific requests that the Department believes are essential to prepare for hearing, the requests may be submitted for review to the undersigned to determine if failure to receive the requested information will unduly prejudice Department’s preparation for hearing.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
The motion to extend the time for discovery is DENIED.
Dated: January 8, 2008
|
s/Beverly Jones Heydinger |
|
BEVERLY JONES HEYDINGER |
|
Administrative Law Judge |