Blaisdell v. Johnson
Opinion of the Court
I have reviewed my bench notes made during your arguments in the above matter at the hearing last month and have studied the memoranda of counsel. For the defendant, Mr. Harman has filed a Motion for Protective Order and for the plaintiff, Mr. Thorsen has filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. Both motions concern the same issue of whether the defendant can be compelled to answer questions at the pre-trial deposition that require his expert opinion.
It should be noted that the court is aware that there are no Virginia Supreme court cases directly in point. Therefore, the circuit court opinions submitted by both attorneys have been very helpful.
Depositions of the defendant-physician were taken on July 18, 1985. At that time, the defendant was asked to articulate his understanding as to the standard of care in Virginia and as to whether he had performed at that level in his treatment of Benjamin E. Blaisdell. Discovery, since its inception has been progressively broadened. The Rules of the Supreme Court, Part 4, clearly express the Supreme Court’s intention that it have almost no limitations. Since no arguments were made that the information sought was privileged or irrelevant, the only exceptions in Rule 4:1(b), the Court must require the defendant to answer this particular inquiry.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.