Personal Injury Lawyer in Baltimore

Unless it is inherently unfair a court will require a party seeking discovery from an opposing party's expert to pay the expert a reasonable fee for the time spent in responding to the discovery provided the discovery is for the purpose of finding the expert's opinions. As far as determining the reasonableness of expert fees the court has applied a six-point test to resolve the question of the reasonableness. Specifically, the court focuses on the following factors: the witness's area of expertise; the education and training that is required to provide the expert insights; the prevailing rates; the nature, quality and complexity of the discovery responses; the cost of living in a particular geographical error area; and any other factor likely to help the court. See Goldwater v Postmaster General of the United States 130 6 F.R.D. 337. Maryland courts look at Maryland rule 2–402 (e)(3), to recognize the court's authority to require the discovery party to pay the expert's preparation time when circumstances so require. The awards for preparation time typically are granted only upon extraordinary circumstances. If you have questions regarding personal injury in Maryland please feel free to give me a call at 1-888-760-7339.

Document Discovery Maryland Personal Injury

In the course of litigation of a personal injury case in Maryland documents maybe requested by the opposition. The question then arises, who pays for the cost of the production, which in some cases can be very expensive. See Dynamic Corp. v. Shan Enterprises, LLC, 175 MD App 211 927 a 2d 20 (2007). Copying a document is a related act within the meaning of Maryland Rule 2-422 (c). Unless otherwise ordered it is the responsibility of a requesting party, not a producing party to pay the expense of making copies. See also Clever View Investments Ltd. v Oshatz, 233 F.R.D. 393; holding that the producing party need only make requested documents available for inspection and need not pay for copying costs.

Interrogatories Maryland personal injury case filed in the District Court

There are times when a personal injury case is most appropriately filed in the District Court as opposed to the circuit court. The rules of procedure between the two different court settings will affect the timing for issuing discovery to the defendant you are suing. One example is the timing for issuing discovery interrogatories to the defendant. The Maryland rules require that the plaintiff must serve discovery interrogatories on the defendant no later then 10 days after receiving notice from the court that the defendant has filed his notice of intention to defend. As such it is good practice in the District Court particularly to serve your discovery request at the same time you serve your complaint on the defendant. Otherwise it is equally important to carefully calendar the due dates for issuing discovery, responding to discovery request, and filing your notice of intention to enter records into evidence.

If you have questions on these or any other subjects affecting personal injury in Maryland please feel free to visit MarylandinjuryAttorney.net or feel free to call me at 1-888-760-7339

Maryland Personal Injury Discovery: Insured's Statements to Insurer

I noticed that defense counsel is fond of issuing a subpoena to my client's PIP carrier to get the PIP application. As such at my office we exercise proper caution in drafting the responses contained in the PIP application. So the question arises; does the blade cut both ways. I mean if the defnedant can get my client's PIP application, why can't I get the defendant's statements to his insurance company. The answer is maybe you can get the statements. The Maryland court has considered the issue in Cutchin v State of Maryland 143 Md App 81 (2002). In this case the court determined the statements in this matter were not prividged and were subject to discovery. However, as dicta the Court articulated a two factor test to determine if the defendant's communications to his insurer are coverd as prividged communications between attorney and client. The two facts are (1) whether the communication was predominately related to the insured's defense and (2) did the defendant have a reasonable expectation that his communications were confidential. I suggest it is a reasonable discovery question to ask for any and all statements made by the defendant to any and all persons including but not limited to his insurer.

Discovery Admission of Fact

I have often had limited success using this form of discovery in personal injury cases. Defendants normally simply deny all requested admissions. There is no penalty in the rules for a denial that ends up being true, other then the potential that I can recover cost incurred in proving a fact denied. However, I came across an idea from a very good blog that sent me to another blog that proposed an interrogatory question to be filed post the admission denials. The author of the blog proposed an interrogatory as follows:
"To the extent that any of your responses to any of Plaintiff's requests for admissions is other than an unqualified admission, list all facts on which you based any part of your response that is not an unqualified admission, identify all documents memorializing each such fact, and identify all persons with knowledge of each such fact."

This is interesting enough to try. After all I like the idea of an admission of fact. But what value when the dog has no bite.

Copy Right 2007 Your Maryland Lawyer; Maryland Injury Attorney

Discovery Of Pre-Existing Conditions

I normally propound an interrogatory question to the defendant requesting information they may have regarding my client's pre-exisitng conditions, if any, or if they contend a pre-exisiting condition was aggravated by the accident. Generally, the defendant objects, stating this is work product. I came across a Discovery opinion that states the defendant is required to answer. However, their response is limited to information provided by the plaintiff. I agree this is maybe of limited value to the plaintiff absent the defendant failing to identify the condition in their answers to interrogatories, post plaintiff's disclosure, and later being denied the opportunity to make the argument at trial. Daily Record Sperti v Muhr August 10, 1966.

Copy Right 2007 Your Maryland Lawyer and Maryland Injury Attorney