109 A.3d 846
R.I.2015Background
- In March 2008, Kristopher Plante was injured in a head‑on collision with Stack, who was intoxicated and crossed the center line; the accident occurred on Route 102 in Burrillville, Rhode Island.
- Plante filed a negligence complaint in 2010 against Stack and Disabled American Veterans Department of Massachusetts, Inc.; defendants dispute damages but not liability.
- Plante alleged cognitive and other injuries affecting his education and earning capacity; defendants concede some injuries but claim near full physical and cognitive recovery.
- Defendants sought pro hac vice admission for Attorney Darrell Mook, which was granted in 2011 due to his dram shop expertise and insurer relationship.
- Discovery included intrusive divorce-related questioning of Kristopher’s parents and Kristopher, and planned neuropsychological examination of Kristopher; defendants sought further deposition testimony and a neuropsych exam under protective orders.
- A hearing justice limited deposition testimony and likewise limited, then permitted, a neuropsychological examination with conditions; later, she revoked Mook’s pro hac vice admission for improper questioning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Plantes could be compelled to provide further divorce-related testimony | Plante argues discovery about divorce is relevant to Kristopher’s condition | Defendants contend questions were intrusive and improper | Denial of the motion to compel was affirmed |
| Whether the protective order restricting history taking and presence at the neuropsychological exam was proper | Plaintiffs contend history and presence aid accurate evaluation | Defendants contend limits ensure fairness and prevent prejudice | History taking allowed; presence of plaintiff’s counsel during testing disallowed; third-party representative allowed under modification |
| Whether the pro hac vice admission of Attorney Mook should be revoked | Defendants argue sanction needed for improper conduct | Plaintiffs argue conduct warrants sanction but not necessarily revocation | Certiorari granted to review revocation; majority affirm revocation; concurrence disagrees with severity |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelvey v. Coughlin, 625 A.2d 775 (R.I. 1993) (only privilege permits instructing a deponent not to answer; court should rule on objections)
- Ondis v. Pion, 497 A.2d 13 (R.I. 1985) (fact witness not compelled to give expert testimony)
- Sousa v. Chaset, 519 A.2d 1132 (R.I. 1987) (nonparty witness cannot be compelled to render expert opinion)
- Henderson v. Newport County Regional Y.M.C.A., 966 A.2d 1242 (R.I. 2009) (liberal discovery; history-taking importance in examinations)
- Pleasant Management, LLC v. Carrasco, 918 A.2d 213 (R.I. 2007) (sanctions review; abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- In re Ferrey, 774 A.2d 62 (R.I. 2001) (out-of-state attorney admission; special/rare occasions)