DOCKET NO: KNLCV186032838S
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`ORDER 438574
`
`SANCHEZ, BENJAMIN Et Al
`
` V.
`OB-GYN SERVICES, P.C. Et Al
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NORWICH/NEW
`LONDON
` AT NEW LONDON
`
`9/2/2020
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDER REGARDING:
`05/06/2020 163.00 OBJECTION
`
`The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby:
`
`ORDER:
`
`The defendant filed an objection to the plaintiff's supplemental request for production directed to the
`defendant Stephen Briggs, M.D. An affidavit of the parties attempted resolution of the discovery dispute
`was filed. The matter was heard by the court on September 2, 2020.
`At the hearing, the plaintiffs claim that the defendant, Stephen Briggs M.D., who is disclosed as an
`expert witness in the pending action, served as an expert witness in other medical negligence actions.
`The plaintiffs claim that these other actions involved the same or similar injuries as alleged in this
`pending action, namely shoulder dystocia or brachial plexus injury. The plaintiffs are seeking the
`disclosure of all "written communications, reports and transcripts from these other cases."
`The parties filed a stipulated exhibit (Ex. 1), which is an excerpt(s) of the transcript from the deposition
`of Dr. Briggs in this matter. Dr. Briggs testified under oath that he served as an expert witness and
`provided deposition testimony in four shoulder dystocia or brachial plexus injury litigation matters. He
`testified that his involvement in these cases occurred eight or more than ten years ago.
`Pursuant to P.B. 13-2, discovery of information must be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`admissible evidence. Practice Book 13-4(c)(1), which addresses discovery for expert witnesses, further
`provides in pertinent part: "Nothing contained in subsection (b) of this section shall impair the right of
`any party from exercising that party's rights under the rules of practice to subpoena or to request
`production of any materials, to the extent otherwise discoverable, in addition to those produced under
`subsection (b) of this section, in connection with the deposition of any expert witness, nor shall anything
`contained herein impair the right of a party to raise any objections to any request for production of
`documents sought hereunder to the extent that a claim of privilege exists."
`The plaintiff has not shown that the facts of the other cases are causally connected to any facts alleged in
`the instant case. However, the plaintiffs argues that the deposition testimony from prior cases is
`discoverable with regard to the defendant's proposed testimony on the applicable standard of care in the
`cases involving the same or similar claims or injuries. The court agrees. The objection is overruled, in
`part, and sustained, in part.
`The defendant shall comply with the following limited discovery:
`1. Identify by name and docket number the cases in which Dr. Briggs served as an expert witness in a
`shoulder dystocia or brachial plexus injury litigation matter;
`2. Identify deposition transcript(s) of Dr. Briggs in which Dr. Briggs served as an expert witness in a
`shoulder dystocia or brachial plexus injury litigation matter, which are in his possession and control;
`3. Disclose whether the discovery sought is in the possession, control or power of the defendant Briggs
`and whether subject to any privilege. P.B. 13-2, 13-4.
`This order does not preclude supplemental discovery not subject to any objection or privilege.
`
`KNLCV186032838S 9/2/2020
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`

`438574
`
`Judge: KIMBERLY KNOX
`
`This document may be signed or verified electronically and has the same validity and status as a document with a physical
`(pen-to-paper) signature. For more information, see Section I.E. of the State of Connecticut Superior Court E-Services
`Procedures and Technical Standards (https://jud.ct.gov/external/super/E-Services/e-standards.pdf), section 51-193c of the
`Connecticut General Statutes and Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-4.
`
`KNLCV186032838S 9/2/2020
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`