Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Evidence

Behler v. Hanlon

United States District Court for the District of Maryland · 2001 · Evidence
199 F.R.D. 553 (D. Md. 2001)
Updated
EvidenceDiscoveryImpeachmentExpert witness biasRule 26(b)(1)Rule 26(b)(2)Rule 26(c)Rule 34

Facts

The plaintiff requested documents concerning Dr. Keehn's income over the last five years from performing Rule 35 examinations and giving expert testimony for defense attorneys and insurance companies, as well as records of time spent, cases handled, and entities retaining him. The defendant refused to provide the information, and the plaintiff then served a Rule 45 subpoena on Dr. Keehn seeking similar material. The plaintiff asserted that Dr. Keehn had spent more than twenty years as a defense expert for insurance companies and that the information was needed to show bias at trial. The dispute centered on whether such financial and case-related information was discoverable and, if so, in what form.

Issue

May a plaintiff discover information about a defense medical expert's income, affiliations, and prior forensic work to support bias impeachment? If so, may the court limit the scope and method of that discovery under Rule 26(b)(2) and protect the information by order?

Rule

Information bearing on a witness's bias, prejudice, financial interest, or motive to testify in a particular manner is relevant impeachment material and falls within the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1), including under the narrowed claims-and-defenses standard. But discoverability does not entitle a party to unrestricted access to the most intrusive materials requested; under Rule 26(b)(2) and Rule 26(c), the court may require less burdensome, less costly, and less intrusive means of obtaining sufficiently probative bias information, and may protect sensitive financial information by protective order.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a federal products-liability case in Baltimore, Nina Torres expects the defense to call Dr. Evan Mercer, a retained biomechanics expert. Nina serves discovery seeking information showing what portion of Dr. Mercer's income over the last five years came from expert work for manufacturers and their insurers, arguing it may show he has a financial incentive to favor defendants.

Is the requested information most likely discoverable?

Explanation. The majority opinion treats bias impeachment as a recognized and important form of impeachment. Information showing a witness's bias, prejudice, financial interest, or motive to testify in a certain way is relevant to credibility and therefore discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1), including under the narrower claims-and-defenses standard.