ILNews

Attorneys say ruling confuses discovery regarding expert materials

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Six years ago, a water heater explosion leveled an apartment attached to a rural Morgan County barn, resulting in one man’s death and four of his family members being severely burned.

But a liability lawsuit filed by the victims a year after the May 2004 blast erupted in its own metaphorical explosion of discovery disputes. Attorneys battled over what should be admitted as discovery, and the Indiana Court of Appeals weighed in on what trial rules allow as far as non-testifying expert statements involving related but unconnected cases that are closed or settled.

An April 14, 2010, appellate decision came two weeks after the Morgan Superior jury trial began, although the ruling came down prior to the trial’s culmination. That happened in the first week of May, resulting in a divided appeals panel that has left attorneys disagreeing about what it means for Indiana law.

One side says it sets a bright-line rule on the issue, while the opposing counsel says it clouds the waters and means more confusion is likely on the horizon for those in the litigation trenches in trial courts statewide.

But those wanting to know for sure may have to analyze for themselves the appellate ruling in White-Rodgers, et al. v. Lonnie Kindle, et al., No. 55A05-0906-CV-308, which included a 19-page majority decision and 10-page dissent criticizing the final result.

At the heart of the underlying litigation before any discovery disputes arose is a May 12, 2004, explosion at 3818 Upper Patton Park Road near Monrovia in Morgan County. Steve Fredrick, 32, died in the explosion, while his wife, 2-year-old son, an uncle, and 2-year-old cousin were all badly burned.

Investigators blamed the blast on a propane leak in the apartment, which was connected to a barn. The victims filed a suit in 2005 against several utility companies, including the Emerson Electric division of White-Rodgers that had manufactured the gas control on the water heater in the apartment where the explosion occurred.

Litigation battles ensued in the years before trial, and the family and several utility companies have been fighting to determine who was liable and to what extent. Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly began as a special judge in late 2008 after one of the utility defendants asked for a new judge in the case that would end up with more than 200 motions and filings and lead to a three-week jury trial.

When she began presiding, the parties were already wrapped up in a dispute about what White-Rodgers should have to produce as far as non-privileged documents from a similar ongoing Missouri case against the company that also involved a propane gas explosion and water heater gas valve. Citing a 22-year-old precedent in American Buildings Co. v. Kokomo Grain Inc., 506 N.E.2d 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987), the plaintiffs argued that White-Rodgers had to produce all expert materials from the Missouri case because the case had been settled and those documents weren’t entitled to discovery protection. That court held in American Buildings that advisory consultants from prior litigation are not protected from discovery by Trial Rule 26(B)(4)(b). Judge Moberly ruled against the company and ordered the documents be produced, but later backtracked on that decision and limited the discovery to expert witnesses from the out-of-state case. White-Rodgers responded that it hadn’t classified any expert witnesses in that other case and didn’t have any more material to provide for discovery.

Judge Moberly later conducted a hearing during which she ruled White-Rodgers hadn’t shown the Missouri case experts were solely consulting or advisory, and she granted a sanctions order for the discovery production and $18,187 in attorneys fees.

Bryan Babb Babb

That all led to this appeal. In its recent split decision, a majority of the three-judge appellate panel reversed the discovery sanction against White-Rodgers and found the experts consulted in the prior case were never designated as experts who’d testify at trial, meaning those materials didn’t have to be disclosed.

Relying on precedent from Reeves v. Boyd & Sons, 654 N.E. 2d 864, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), and RR. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. N. Tex. Steel Co., 752 N.E.2d 112, 132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), that have “stressed the importance of whether an expert has been designated as a testifying expert, Chief Judge John Baker and Judge Ezra Friedlander found that White-Rodgers had produced all it needed to and that plaintiffs didn’t show any exceptional circumstances as required by Trial Rule 26(B)(4)(b).

The majority said the Reeves and Donnelley decisions actually had narrowed the American Buildings precedent that may have been overly broad in saying expert materials from prior-terminated litigation are subject to discovery in later litigation without regard for the expert witness designation.

“Moreover, to hold that Rule 26(B)(4)(b) discovery protections do not extend to subsequent litigation would chill the purposes of the discovery rules …,” Chief Judge Baker wrote, saying it would hamper settlements and possibly sway parties not to settle at all.

The majority determined that this case is similar to the Missouri case that White-Rodgers had previously settled, and it would be reasonable to infer that those expert materials would assist the company in developing its litigation strategy. Plaintiffs could use their own resources to get that same information, not rely on the already-purchased materials from the prior case, the two judges noted.

But disagreeing with his colleagues, Judge Terry Crone wrote that he reluctantly agreed the court had jurisdiction in this case and he would have required White-Rodgers to disclose that expert material.

“Although American Buildings has been on the books and guided discovery proceedings in Indiana for nearly a quarter century, the majority gives it short shrift and criticizes its holding as ‘overly broad.’ I respectfully disagree,” he wrote, adding his disagreement that Reeves and Donnelley narrowed the 1987 ruling. “As such, I believe that American Buildings, in addition to being soundly reasoned, remains very much alive and well as binding precedent.”

Judge Crone also noted the majority’s “undue emphasis” on the economic impact of expert disclosures is based on an “outmoded concept of jurisprudence that often valued a party’s financial resources more highly than fundamental fairness and the search for truth.”

“The modern discovery process is a balance weighted more heavily in favor of disclosure, and I believe the mere economic value of expert materials – especially from terminated litigation – is an insufficient justification for nondisclosure,” he wrote.

Jon Laramore Laramore

Reacting to the full decision, the family’s appellate attorney Jon Laramore with Baker & Daniels said he isn’t sure where the law now stands.

“The meaning of the majority decision is difficult to assess,” he said. “Previously, the rule under American Buildings was that all material was disclosable when a case was over. (The) White-Rodgers decision didn’t apply that rule, but I’m not sure what rule remains after this has been decided now.”

He found Judge Crone’s dissent interesting, particularly a point that says the American Buildings holding is consistent with the majority federal rule and that’s been in place for more than 20 years without much difficulty in applying it.

The issue could very well arise in another case with a discovery dispute because this makes it more difficult to understand what expert materials are available from a closed case, Laramore said.

“This will make trial judges have to sort out where the line gets drawn between American Buildings and White-Rodgers, and it will be difficult for parties to agree on where that line falls based on these two rulings,” he said. “I see an increase in litigation and discovery in cases where there’s repeat litigation over the same product or incident, or in any situation where a party is using the same experts in multiple cases.”

Indianapolis appellant attorney Bryan Babb at Bose McKinney & Evans, who represented White-Rodgers, disagreed with his colleague and said the rule from this case is clear.

“This clarifies that regardless of whether a case concludes, settles, or is currently active, that materials associated with nontestifying experts won’t be discoverable. Prior to this, one view of the law could have been that only consulting materials were protected in active, ongoing cases – that once it’s settled or concluded, those would be discoverable. Now, we know they’re never discoverable. Really, anytime you have a bright-line rule like this, it simplifies rules for everyone.”

Despite the holding in this case, the full effect of this new caselaw didn’t impact the underlying White-Rodgers trial, though. The company turned over the requested discovery to plaintiffs before the trial began in April – before the appeal came down in the second week. That was one of the reasons why transfer wasn’t sought, in addition to the case being tried on the merits, both attorneys said.

In its final verdict, the jury assigned 35 percent of the liability to William Kindle, who owns the property where the explosion happened; 30 percent to the non-settling gas company, Midland Impact LLC; and 17.5 percent each for South Central REMC and RushShelby REC Inc. The jury found that SCI Propane LLC, SCI Services LLC, and White-Rodgers have no liability. The trial was split into liability and damages phases, and the judge will either hold a second trial or mediation on what the damages will amount to for each liable party.

Babb said the company was hoping that the end-result wasn’t going to require it to produce the handful of documents that had been withheld, but that is how the litigation and appeal process can run into each other.

“This is an example of how an interlocutory appeal as a matter of right can arise, and if the trial isn’t stayed as this one wasn’t going to be, it shows how those can intercede and might create issues during ongoing litigation,” he said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Where may I find an attorney working Pro Bono? Many issues with divorce, my Disability, distribution of IRA's, property, money's and pressured into agreement by my attorney. Leaving me far less than 5% of all after 15 years of marriage. No money to appeal, disabled living on disability income. Attorney's decision brought forward to judge, no evidence ever to finalize divorce. Just 2 weeks ago. Please help.

  2. For the record no one could answer the equal protection / substantive due process challenge I issued in the first post below. The lawless and accountable only to power bureaucrats never did either. All who interface with the Indiana law examiners or JLAP be warned.

  3. Hi there I really need help with getting my old divorce case back into court - I am still paying support on a 24 year old who has not been in school since age 16 - now living independent. My visitation with my 14 year old has never been modified; however, when convenient for her I can have him... I am paying past balance from over due support, yet earn several thousand dollars less. I would contact my original attorney but he basically molest me multiple times in Indy when I would visit.. Todd Woodmansee - I had just came out and had know idea what to do... I have heard he no longer practices. Please help1

  4. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  5. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

ADVERTISEMENT