Virginia Department of Transportation v. Fairbrook Business Park Associates
Opinion of the Court
I have reviewed petitioner’s Interrogatories and the Objections filed by defendants, together with the relevant case law pertaining to evidence which is properly considered in an eminent domain proceeding. It is my conclusion that petitioners’ motion to compel answers to Interrogatories numbers 4, 7, 8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 9C(1), 9C(2), 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 11 and 12 should be granted. With respect to Interrogatory no. 8 and the related sequential interrogatories, note that defendants need only name those experts they expect to call as an expert witness at trial. Rule 4:1 (b)(4)(A)(i).
I believe discovery regarding the grounds for support of an expert’s opinion is appropriate. See generally discussion in Michie’s Jurisprudence, Eminent Domain, sect. 88 (Admissibility, Evidence); see also City of Staunton v. Aldhizer, 211 Va. 658, 665 (1971); West Virginia Dept. of Hwys. v. Sickles, 242 S.E.2d 567 (W. Va. 1978); West Virginia Dept. of Hwys. v. Brumfield, N. 2, 295 S.E.2d 917, 920 (W. Va. 1982); 27 Am. Jur. 2d, Eminent Domain, sect. 425 (Expert and Opinion Evidence). These treatises and cases stand for the proposition that the bases of the
Accordingly, defendant shall respond to petitioners’ interrogatories which are the subject of this Motion to Compel and which are referenced above, by December 7, 1990. Petitioners’ prayer for sanctions, attorneys* fees, and costs is denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.