Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In Re All Individual Kugel Mesh Cases
Citation: Not availableDocket: C.A. No. PC 07-5058, Master Docket No. PC 08-9999
Court: Superior Court of Rhode Island; March 30, 2011; Rhode Island; State Appellate Court
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Defendants Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc. to respond to interrogatories regarding payments made to six medical consultants, dated November 17, 2010. The motion follows a previous attempt in the Ingram v. Davol case and seeks detailed financial information about payments made to these consultants from 1999 to 2010, including itemized reasons for each payment. Defendants provided partial responses, including total annual payments for some consultants, but failed to deliver itemized details or any information pertaining to one consultant, Dr. Moore. The consultants are linked to the Iannitti Study, significant evidence in prior litigation against the Defendants. Plaintiffs argue that the requested information is crucial to assess potential bias in expert testimonies and assert that a prior MDL Court Order does not restrict this discovery. Conversely, Defendants claim the request is moot and burdensome, asserting they have already provided sufficient information, and maintain that the discovery is precluded by the aforementioned court order. The court's analysis underscores that Rhode Island discovery rules allow parties to obtain relevant information not protected by privilege, and mandates that requested parties produce documents within their control. A motion to compel can be filed if a party does not adequately respond to a discovery request. A justice of the Superior Court possesses broad discretion in granting or denying discovery orders, with the burden resting on the requesting party to demonstrate materiality under Rule 34. Relevancy in discovery is interpreted liberally, focusing on the material's relation to the subject matter of the case rather than the pleadings. Information sought in discovery does not need to be admissible at trial if it is likely to lead to admissible evidence. Payments to expert witnesses are relevant during discovery as they may indicate bias, which can be admissible at trial. The amount paid to a witness for their testimony is disclosable during cross-examination. In this instance, the discovery request pertains specifically to experts involved in the Ingram trial, aimed at uncovering potential bias, but is deemed premature as no experts have yet been designated for the Brokaw case. The motion to compel discovery responses is denied without prejudice, with the court indicating it will refer to federal civil procedure rules for guidance, given the similarity to Rhode Island rules. Discovery aimed at uncovering bias must be balanced against preventing overly burdensome or cumulative discovery efforts. At this stage, further arguments from the parties are unnecessary.