SHELLY TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT CO.
v.
ARNOLD CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL.
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.
Shelly Tractor & Equipment Co. sought to depose expert witnesses listed by defendant Arnold Construction Co., but defendant moved for a protective order after deciding not to call one expert witness (Klaiber) at trial. The court granted the protective order, holding that a party may protect an expert witness from deposition once it decides not to call that witness, even if the witness was previously expected to testify.
Defendant's motion for a protective order is granted. A witness not expected to be called at trial cannot be deposed without a showing of special need, even if that witness was previously included on a list of expected witnesses or was expected to testify at an earlier point in time.
[1] A party may protect an expert witness from deposition if the party no longer expects to call that witness at trial, even if the witness was previously identified as an ex…
[2] Discovery of expert witnesses is generally precluded as attorney work product unless the relevant facts are unobtainable by other means or obtainable only under hardship.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The issue then is whether a party, once he reaches the point of "expecting to call an expert witness at trial," may then protect that witness from deposition when he later decides not to call him.”
Identifies the central legal question before the court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Arnold Construction Co. initially indicated in interrogatory answers that it intended to call Mr. Klaiber as an expert witness. Plaintiff Sh…
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
This matter is presented upon defendant’s motion for a protective order.
Defendant, in answer to interrogatories, stated that he intended to use a Mr. Klaiber as an expert witness in this case. On August 15, 1973 plaintiff filed a motion for leave to take the deposition of Mr. Klaiber and two other expert witnesses. This motion was granted on November 7, 1973. Subsequently, on December 10, 1973, the defendant filed a motion for a protective order, claiming that he no longer expected to call Mr. Klaiber as an expert witness at trial. It is that motion which is before the court now.
Depositions are being sought under Rule 1.280, which is patterned after Federal Rule 26. It seems clear that if defendant now expects to call the witness at the trial, plaintiff would have the right to depose him; contrariwise, if defendant had never expected to call the witness at trial, plaintiff then could not depose him except upon showing of special need, which has not been shown here. The issue then is whether a party, once he reaches the point of “expecting to call an expert witness at trial,” may then protect that witness from deposition when he later decides not to call him.
Discovery is normally related to trial preparation. Discovery of expert witnesses is precluded from discovery as part of an attorney’s work product except under two circumstances —
1. “If the relevant facts are unobtainable by other means, or are obtainable only under . . . conditions of hardship.” Willett v. General Electric Company, N.H., 1973, 306 A.2d 789; or
2. When it becomes reasonably probable that he would be called as a witness. Workman v. Public Services Co. of New Hampshire, N.H., 1973, 308 A.2d 540.
The rationale of the second exception, the one upon which plaintiff seeks discovery, is not that the witness may have relevant information, for this in itself is an insufficient reason for discovery, but that a party is entitled to depose a witness who is expected to testify, so that that party may prepare for trial. A witness not expected to testify at trial is, quite simply, not expected to testify at trial, even though at one point in time he may have been included on a list of witnesses.
Accordingly, it is ordered that defendant’s motion for a protective order is granted.