STEVEN LEVY AND MARGARET LEVY, PETITIONERS,
v.
ANTHONY JOSEPH LILLY, LOURDES LILLY AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Defendants sought certiorari review of an order denying their motion for protective order that would have prevented opposing counsel from requiring their orthopedic expert to answer interrogatories about the frequency of his depositions, court testimony, and the roles he assumed in various cases during a specified time period. The court held that respondents were entitled to this discovery under Elkins v. Syken and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respondents are entitled to the requested discovery information under Elkins v. Syken and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4). Dr. Petti is capable of compiling the requested information, and the motion for protective order is properly denied.
[1] Discovery rules permit interrogatories seeking information regarding an expert witness's deposition and court appearance history.
[2] An expert witness may be compelled to disclose the number of times they were deposed within a specified period, categorized by their role.
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“We conclude, contrary to the petitioners' argument, that the respondents are entitled to this information under Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla.1996) and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(4)(amended effective Jan. 1, 1997 to reflect Elkins).”
The court's principal holding that the expert's deposition and testimony history is discoverable under established precedent and rule amendments.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners are defendants in an accident case and retained orthopedic surgeon A.F. Petti as their expert. Respondents served interrogatories seeking …
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 Expert Witness Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Petitioners are defendants in an accident case. They seek certiorari review of an order denying their motion for protective order, which requires their expert, orthopedic surgeon A.F. Petti to answer the following questions by interrogatory:
1. Please state the number of times that you were deposed between June 1, 1998, through June 30,1998.
2. Please state the number of times that your deposition was taken between January 1, 1998 and June 30, 1998 when you were: (a) treating orthopedic physician: (b) defense and/or independent medical examiner; (c) other. 3. In the event that you answered affirmatively section (c) in Question No. 2, please state what your role was that led to your deposition being taken.
4. Please state the number of times you appeared in court to testify between June 1, 1998 and June 30, 1998. (In the event that you were called to testify in more than one (1) courtroom on a particular date, each time you were to testify counted separately where you appeared)(i.e. If you testified on 1/10/98 before Judge Stretifeld at 1:30, before Judge Stafford at 2:30, and before Judge Andrews at 4:00, that would be three (3) appearances).
5. For each court appearance, please state the number of times you were called to testify: (a) By plaintiffs attorney as the treating physician; (b) By plaintiffs attorney as the defense examiner; (c) By defendant’s attorney as a defense examiner; (d) By defendant’s attorney as a treating or consulting physician. (For purposes of responding to these Interrogatories, it is not necessary that you disclose the name of any patients that you treated or examined; it is necessary for you to identify the names of the attorneys with whom you consulted; and it is not necessary for you to identify the amount of money that you billed or were paid for these services).
We conclude, contrary to the petitioners’ argument, that the respondents are entitled to this information under Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1996) and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(4)(amended effective Jan. 1, 1997 to reflect Elkins). We also reject Dr. Petti’s argument that he is unable to compile this information. We therefore deny the petition.
FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.