 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Weininger v. Allan9/5/2000
UNPUBLISHED
At issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by its orders compelling discovery and denying the motion for reconsideration. Because the orders were proper, we affirm.
Susan and Arthur Weininger rented a house from Margaret and Graham Allan. After an alleged sewer line back-up that spilled several inches of sewage into the basement floor of the house, the Weiningers sued the Allans for fraud, breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Over the Weiningers' objection, the trial court granted their counsel's motion to withdraw and they proceeded pro se. Thereafter, the Weiningers objected to the entire set of the Allans' first set of interrogatories on the erroneous ground that the written interrogatories exceeded 35 in number. The Allans eventually received Arthur Weininger's answers only, which were interposed with general and/or specific objections to every single interrogatory. Susan Weininger did not respond to a separate set of interrogatories sent to her.
The Allans moved to compel discovery. They also sought an award of reasonable attorney fees and an order prohibiting the Weiningers from calling any lay or expert witnesses at trial. The trial court granted the Allans' motion to compel, denied without prejudice the motion to exclude lay and expert witnesses, and awarded attorney fees to the Allans. The trial court also denied the Weiningers' motion for reconsideration of that order.
The Weiningers appeal these two orders.
Order Compelling Discovery
The Weiningers challenge the trial court's order compelling them to serve complete answers to the Allans' interrogatories on grounds that the interrogatories were irrelevant, immaterial, and nonsensical. We hold that the trial court's order was well within its discretion.
Under CR 26(b)(1), parties are generally permitted broad discovery of any matter that is relevant to the subject matter of the lawsuit and not privileged. The scope of discovery is much broader than the standard of relevance required under the evidence rules for admissibility at trial. The fact that the information sought during discovery would otherwise be inadmissible at trial is not an impediment to discovery so long as such information appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. We review discovery orders for abuse of discretion. The Weiningers first argue that interrogatories relating to their medical history, financial circumstances, prior criminal history, prior lawsuits, and other background information were not material, relevant, or calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. As such, they claim that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling their objections and compelling them to answer these interrogatories without objection or evasion.
Here, interrogatories relating to Arthur Weininger's medical history are relevant because the Weiningers allege negligent infliction of emotional distress as a cause of action against the Allans. To state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must establish, among other elements, that the emotional distress is manifested by objective symptoms. Because the objective symptoms of Arthur's alleged emotional distress are at issue, his medical history is discoverable. Moreover, Arthur cannot claim physician-patient privilege with respect to medical records because RCW 5.60.060(4) provides that a plaintiff who commences an action for personal injury waives the physician-patient privilege 90 days after
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|