ERNEST RAYMOND MCADOO AND ALFONSO PETTI, M.D., PETITIONERS,
v.
GUDRUN OGDEN AND LEADLEY OGDEN, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this discovery dispute arising from an automobile accident case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's denial of a protective order and required an expert witness to produce billing records showing his compensation from defense insurance work, despite confidentiality concerns. The court found the information relevant to impeach the witness's potential bias without unduly burdening the expert.
The court held that the expert witness must produce or provide cost estimates for billing records as they are relevant to impeach potential bias. The trial court's denial of the protective order was proper because the requested information, while burdening the expert, is not privileged and the burden does not outweigh its relevance; patient confidentiality can be protected through redaction.
[1] Discovery requests seeking information that may demonstrate a witness's potential bias are relevant and discoverable.
[2] A court may order the production of billing information for expert witness examinations if it is relevant to demonstrating potential bias.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Resolution of the issue requires balancing of the competing interests of the relevancy of the discovery information sought as impeachment information, against the burdensomeness of its production and the confidentiality interests of the doctor.”
Establishes the legal framework for evaluating discovery disputes—balancing relevance against burden and confidentiality.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. McAdoo was a defendant in an automobile accident lawsuit. The plaintiff (Ogden) sought discovery of all reports prepared by Dr. Petti, an expert w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cost Of Production cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1085] POLEN, Judge.
Dr. McAdoo, defendant below in this suit stemming from an automobile accident, and his expert nonparty witness, Dr. Petti, seek review by certiorari of the circuit court’s denial of Dr. McAdoo’s motion for a protective order. We deny the petition for certiorari and uphold the trial court’s order as we find there was no departure from the essential requirements of law and the information sought is neither privileged nor cat-out-of-the-bag information. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987).
McAdoo filed a motion for a protective order in response to Ogden’s production request for all reports Dr. Petti had made for any insurance company or any defense law firm as a result of any medical examination of a plaintiff in any pending cases in Broward County from January 1, 1990, and copies of bills to the individual or company paying for the examinations and reports. The court granted the order as to other patients’ reports but denied the request as to copies of bills to individuals or companies for whom Dr. Petti had served as a defense expert examiner. The court ordered petitioner to produce the billing or advise the respondents of the cost of production which respondents could pay within thirty days and production would take place twenty days thereafter. At issue is plaintiff’s entitlement to the requested discovery. Resolution of the issue requires balancing of the competing interests of the relevancy of the discovery information sought as impeachment information, against the burdensomeness of its production and the confidentiality interests of the doctor. North Miami General Hospital v. Royal Palm Beach Colony, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Whether we are talking about a box-full or a boxcar-full of files, First City Developments v. Hallmark, 545 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), Dr. Petti’s only burden is producing an estimate as to the approximate cost of compiling the information and subsequently supervising that procedure. The information sought is relevant in that it might serve to demonstrate the witness’s potential bias, if, as respondents suggest, a significant part of the doctor’s income is derived from insurance company business. Dr. Petti’s concern for patient confidentiality can be addressed, for example, by just “whiting out” the patients’ names on the bills. Petitioners’ burden does not outweigh the desirability of providing the trier of fact with relevant, helpful information. We therefore deny the petition for certiorari.
GARRETT, J„ and WALDEN, JAMES H. (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)…the moving finger having writ moves on nor any appeal shall lure it back to cancel half a line.” Boucher v. Pure Oil Co., 101 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957). . Allstate expresses concern that the Fourth District's decision in McAdoo v. Ogden, 573 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), has opened a Pandora's box in allowing voluminous discovery. We express no opinion on what constitutes "voluminous” discovery. We merely reiterate that discovery must be confined to relevant materials.…
-
Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996)…r district courts have allowed for the discovery of such financial information. See, e.g., Bissell Bros., Inc. (1099 forms subject to discovery to disclose bias); Wood (records of this type are relevant to credibility as an expert); McAdoo v. Ogden, 573 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (bills for services rendered as defense expert discoverable to show potential bias). Notably, the district court in this case specifically rejected this argument, finding that decisions in this field have gone too far in permitt…
-
Syken v. Elkins, 644 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…impeachment information as against the burdensomeness of its production. Abdel-Fattah, 617 So. 2d at 430; Wood v. Tallahassee Mem’l Regional Med. Ctr., Inc., 593 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 599 So. 2d 1281 (Fla.1992); McAdoo v. Ogden, 573 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); North Miami General Hospital v. Royal Palm Beach Colony, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Upon en banc consideration, we decide that in order to demonstrate the probability of bias, it is sufficient for a doctor to be…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Pezzella, 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- First City Developments OF Fla., Inc. v. The Hallmark OF Hollywood Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 545 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)