Discovery Hurdles

The underlying case involves plaintiff Thalia Harris, who alleged she suffered long-term injuries after Darien Haynes veered into her lane and struck her car in April 2017. She claimed past medical expenses of $17,632 and future medical expenses of $265,000.

Harris and Haynes settled for $100,000, the liability policy limit.

Harris then asked Liberty Mutual to cover the excess, and when Liberty refused, she filed suit for underinsured motorist benefits.

When comparing Harris' deposition to records found in discovery, counselors for the insurer noted Harris was involved in one accident two years before the April 2017 accident, another accident two months after April 2017, and was in traffic accidents in April 2018, June 2019 and January 2020.

Yet, Harris never mentioned the June 2017, and January 2020 accidents, could not recall specifics about the March 2015 accident, and made similar neck and back injury claims in the April 2019 and June 2019 accidents, the per curiam opinion states.

Defense counselors served two notices of intention to take Deposition by Written Question of Harris' primary care physician Dr. F.J. Simmons for the 15-year period prior to the date of the subpoena.

Harris' counsel, Carlos R. Cortez, sought to quash the subpoena, and moved for monetary sanctions, arguing the Liberty attorneys had no legitimate need for the records. He also contended Ormond and Tillman "knowingly, intentionally and purposefully sent frivolous DWQs."

At the trial court hearing, Liberty's counsel offered to narrow the request, limiting discovery to five years before and five years after the accident.

On appeal to the supreme court, Liberty argued in its petition the requested information is relevant and discoverable, because Harris placed the existence and causation of her alleged injuries in the Haynes-related accident in other accidents that occurred within the time period covered by its request.

"We have held that information about the insured's pre-existing medical condition at the time of the accident is relevant to the insurer's damages defenses," the supreme court said. "Aside from Harris herself, Dr. Simmons is likely the only person who can provide evidence of Harris' pre-accident condition."

The doctor's records may show what Harris reported about other accidents, which could affect a factfinder's decision about the causal link between her injuries and the April 2017 accident, the supreme court said.

"Even if Dr. Simmons's records do not reflect any discussion of or treatment for the April 2017 accident, the absence of that information may itself be relevant to the jury's deliberations," the opinion states.

The Harris response brief does not dispute that some information Liberty seeks is relevant. Rather, it contends the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the request was excessive and "plainly overbroad."

However, the supreme court noted that Harris ignored how Liberty expressly narrowed the timeframe.

"Nothing in the record suggests that the trial court considered the proportionality factors, as we have said courts must do," the court said. "By quashing all discovery from Harris's primary physician, the court's order runs afoul of our comment … that a court 'abuses its discretion in unreasonably restricting a party's access to information through discovery.'"