Arch Chemicals, Inc. v. Radiator Specialty Company, No. 3:2007cv01339 - Document 388 (D. Or. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Exclude IME Evidence or Require Disclosure of Work Product 307 is denied. Signed on 12/13/10 by Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel. (kb)

Download PDF
Arch Chemicals, Inc. v. Radiator Specialty Company Doc. 388 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 9 10 11 ARCH CHEMICALS, INC., a Virginia corporation, and LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 12 13 07-1339-HU Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER 14 15 RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, a North Carolina corporation, 16 Defendant. 17 18 HUBEL, Magistrate Judge: 19 Before the court is Radiator Specialty Company's (RSC's) 20 Motion to Exclude Independent Medical Examinations, or in the 21 Alternative, to Require Disclosure of Work Product Regarding Fire 22 Event and its Causation (#307). 23 After the accident which was the basis for the underlying 24 lawsuit 25 underwent independent medical examinations (IMEs) by Deena Klein, 26 M.D. and Randall Greene, Ph.D. in this case, Loran, Eyvette, and Benjamin Davidson During the examinations, the 27 28 OPINION AND ORDER Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Davidson family members made statements pertaining to the events 2 leading up to the fire in the vehicle. 3 IME information from introduction at trial. 4 This motion is denied. RSC seeks to exclude any While it is unclear how, if at all, 5 the plaintiff s plan to use these reports at trial, the record does 6 not support a ruling excluding them categorically. 7 Defendant argues they were produced too late. However, the 8 record supports their disclosure was reasonably timely, and in any 9 event, no prejudice has been shown. In particular, the stated 10 action defendant wants to take is to review the alleged statements 11 of the Davidson family to the IME physicians with them. 12 no evidence of any inability to do that since the production of the 13 reports several months 14 show 15 Davidsons, and an inability to do so, the court will consider 16 opening discovery solely for the purpose of a deposition of the 17 Davidson family member in question on this point only. a diligent effort ago. to There is To the extent defendant is able to review these statements with the 18 Alternatively, the defendant seeks an order requiring the 19 plaintiffs to disclose all work product information from the 20 underlying lawsuit filed by the Davidsons. 21 well, but order plaintiffs to produce to defendant all statements 22 made by any Davidson family member to an independent medical 23 examiner regarding the events or circumstances leading up to the 24 fire, occurring during the fire, or the circumstances after the 25 fire was 26 provided to these independent medical examiners regarding other out. Plaintiffs 27 28 OPINION AND ORDER Page 2 must also I deny that motion as produce any information 1 statements on the same subject made by the Davidsons. 2 information shall be produced to defendant not later than December 3 17, 2010. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED this 13th 7 day of December, 2010. /s/ Dennis J. Hubel 8 Dennis James Hubel United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OPINION AND ORDER Page 3 This

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.