Oregon Supreme Court Weighs in on Depositions of Expert Witnesses
Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 36B provides, in part, that the scope of discovery is that:
[P]arties may inquire regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things, and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.
The court stated that, on its face, this rule “would appear to extend a right to depose or otherwise to obtain discovery from all potential witnesses (whose testimony is not privileged) . . . including expert witnesses.” However, the court noted that it had previously held that “the scope of the rule was not intended to extend to expert witnesses.” However, the court stated that nothing in the wording of the rule “suggests that a witness who has been personally or directly involved in events relevant to a case may not be deposed as to facts of which the witness has personal knowledge, simply because that person will be, as to other matters, an expert witness at trial.” The court stated that counsel for the plaintiff would have every opportunity at the expert’s deposition to object to any questions that sought expert opinions to thus stay within the spirit of the rules and the court’s holding.
