139 A.3d 379
R.I.2016Background
- Cashman sued Cardi alleging defective cofferdam design and related claims arising from the Sakonnet River Bridge project.
- During discovery Cardi refused to produce computer models and draft reports that its testifying expert (George Tamaro) and his firm had developed or considered.
- Cashman moved to compel production of all materials "developed and considered" by the testifying expert (excluding core attorney work product), arguing those materials are needed for effective cross-examination.
- The Superior Court denied the motion, concluding Rule 26(b)(4)(A) did not authorize document production of materials merely "considered by" an expert and that the court lacked authority to order such discovery.
- Cashman petitioned for certiorari to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which granted review.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court: Rule 26(b)(4)(A) permits identification, a summary of opinions, and depositions of testifying experts, but does not require production of documents "considered by" an expert; any rule change must follow the formal amendment process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 26(b)(4)(A) requires production of documents "considered by" a testifying expert (excluding core attorney work product) | Cashman: materials considered by an expert are discoverable and necessary for cross-examination and efficiency | Cardi: Rule 26(b)(4)(A) is limited to interrogatories and depositions and does not authorize document production of materials merely "considered by" an expert; rule should not be expanded judicially | Held: Rule 26(b)(4)(A) is clear and unambiguous—limited to expert identification, summary of opinions, and depositions; it does not require production of documents considered by an expert; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowe Countryside Realty Associates, Co., LLC v. Novare Engineers, Inc., 891 A.2d 838 (R.I. 2006) (emphasizing protection of opinion work product in Rule 26 discovery)
- Capital Properties, Inc. v. City of Providence, 843 A.2d 456 (R.I. 2004) (refusing to adopt federal rule by judicial fiat)
- State v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., 64 A.3d 1183 (R.I. 2013) (applying de novo review to Rule 26 scope)
- State v. Brown, 88 A.3d 1101 (R.I. 2014) (court applies plain meaning when rule language is unambiguous)
- Shine v. Moreau, 119 A.3d 1 (R.I. 2015) (same: plain and ordinary meaning governs rule interpretation)