Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion in New Hamshire

What Is a Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion

“Discovery in civil actions has been regarded in this jurisdiction as a proper procedural aid for the parties to prepare their case in advance of trial and has been given a broad and liberal interpretation.” (See McDuffey v. Boston Maine R.R (1959) 102 N.H. 179, 181.)

“Our liberal discovery rules came about in recognition of the concept that the ends of justice are best served by a system which gives both parties the maximum amount of information available, thus reducing the possibility of surprise at trial.” (See State v. Quintero (2011) 162 N.H. 526, 536.)

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action…” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 3.21; Desclos v. Southern New Hampshire Medical Center (2006) 153 N.H. 607, 611.)

“It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See id.)

“A party is … entitled to disclosure of an opposing party's experts, the substance of the facts and opinions about which they are expected to testify, and the basis of those opinions.” (See Laramie v. Stone (2010) 160 N.H. 419, 425; Figlioli v. R.J. Moreau Cos. (2005) 151 N.H. 618, 626, 866 A.2d 962.)

“This disclosure rule applies even when a known factual witness acts as an expert.” (See Laramie v. Stone (2010) 160 N.H. 419, 425; Wong v. Ekberg (2002) 148 N.H. 369, 372, 807 A.2d 1266.)

“A party's failure to supply this information should result in the exclusion of expert opinion testimony unless good cause is shown to excuse the failure to disclose.” (See id.)

“The policy of disclosure of expert witnesses rests upon the premise that justice is best served by a system that reduces surprise at trial by giving both parties the maximum amount of information.” (See Laramie v. Stone (2010) 160 N.H. 419, 425; Gulf Ins. Co. v. AMSCO (2005) 153 N.H. 28, 33, 889 A.2d 1040.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion

“Under our case law interpreting superior court rules, [a] party is entitled to disclosure of an opposing part/s experts, the substance of the facts and opinions about which they are expected to testify, and the basis of those opinions." (See J M Lumber Constr. Co. v. Smyjunas (2011) 161 N.H. 714, 723; Laramie v. Stone (2010) 160 N.H. 419, 425.)

"A party's failure to supply this information should result in the exclusion of expert opinion testimony unless good cause is shown to excuse the failure to disclose." (See id.)

“Upon motion, the Court may order further discovery by other means, subject to such restrictions as to scope and such provisions, pursuant to subdivision b(3)(c) of this Rule.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Prob. Div. 35.)

“Within 30 days of a request by the opposing party, or in accordance with any order of the court issued pursuant to Rule 3.5, a party shall make a disclosure of expert witnesses (as defined in Evidence Rule 702), whom he or she expects to testify at trial.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 3.27(a).)

“Said disclosure shall conform with RSA 516:29-b, unless waived by agreement of the parties.” (See id.)

“Unless manifest injustice would result, (i) the Court shall require that the Party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under subdivisions b(3)(a) and b(3)(b) of this rule.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Prob. Div. 35(c).)

Discretion of the Court in allowing Expert Opinions

“This court has stated that [t]he admissibility of opinion evidence in this state has a broader scope than it does in other jurisdictions." (See Tullgren v. Phil Lamoy Realty Corp. (1984) 125 N.H. 604, 609; Rau v. Stores (1952) 97 N.H. 490, 495, 92 A.2d 921, 924.)

“The trial judge has wide discretion in the admission or exclusion of expert opinions and this court will uphold the trial court's ruling unless there is a clear abuse of discretion." (See id; Peters v. McNally, 123 N.H. 438, 440, 462 A.2d 119, 121 (1983).

“The trial court has broad discretion in the management of discovery, and its decisions will be reviewed under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” (See J M Lumber Constr. Co. v. Smyjunas (2011) 161 N.H. 714, 723.)

"To show that the trial court's decision was not sustainable, the appealing party must show that the ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case." (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion

It is well settled that “to facilitate third-party discovery under New Hampshire law, a party may serve a nonparty with a subpoena to provide deposition testimony and with a subpoena duces tecum to require production of certain documents or other materials at the deposition.” (See In re N.H. Div. of State Police (2021) 261 A.3d 283, 288.)

It is also well settled that "a trial court has the inherent authority to sanction discovery abuses by awarding reasonable attorney's fees and costs, or by imposing any other appropriate sanction.” (See N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson (2009) 158 N.H. 421, 437.)

Dockets for Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion in New Hampshire

Sort By

Delayne Richardson v David Magoon

Filed

May 13, 2024

Status

Active

Court

Hillsborough County

County

Hillsborough County, NH

Case #