*1 Dear Counsel:

I have reviewed Defendant Kristen Craze's Motion to Quash or Modify the notice of deposition duces tecum to Louis Halikman, M.D., ECF 44, and Plaintiffs’ opposition thereto, ECF 45. No hearing is needed. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons stated below, the motion will be GRANTED and the notice of deposition will be modified as described.

Dr. Halikman conducted defense medical examinations (“DMEs”) of the Plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs then subpoenaed Dr. Halikman, scheduling a deposition but informing him that he would not have to appear if he produced certain requested documents. The documents generally fall into two categories: (1) documents directly pertaining to the DMEs in this case, and (2) documents seeking detailed information about Dr. Halikman's practice and the percentage of time he spends conducting DMEs and providing associated expert testimony. The first category clearly implicates documents that should be produced, including Dr. Halikman's entire file relating to this case and any other items required to be produced under the Federal Rules. The parties’ dispute centers around the latter category of records.

While Plaintiffs assert that the information requested in their notice of deposition was allowed in a similar circumstance by Judge Grimm in Behler v. Hanlon, 199 F.R.D. 553 (D. Md. 2001), Behler in fact supports a substantial narrowing of Plaintiffs’ requests. Plaintiffs should be entitled to explore potential bias on the part of a doctor who may be regularly hired and paid by insurance companies, but the level of detail Plaintiffs request well exceeds what would be needed to establish such bias, and well exceeds what Judge Grimm ordered in Behler. This Court agrees with Judge Grimm's analysis and will order a similar course of action. Specifically, the subpoena should be narrowed to require Dr. Halikman to produce the following records in his possession, custody, and control, in lieu of an in-person deposition:

Behler, 199 F.R.D. at 562.

If Dr. Halikman prefers, rather than producing the above information in documentary form, he can opt to sit for a telephonic deposition lasting no more than two hours, during which he will be expected to provide complete and un-evasive answers to questions posed about the three items listed above. Whichever form the financial discovery ultimately takes, it will be subject to a protective order prohibiting dissemination or copying of the information for any purpose unrelated to the prosecution of this case, absent the consent of Dr. Halikman or further order of this Court.

*2 Following receipt of the discovery described above, if Plaintiffs believe additional information is required to undertake reasonable bias impeachment of Dr. Halikman, they may seek leave of court for additional discovery. In the meantime, Plaintiffs’ notice of deposition will be quashed as to any other items requested.

Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an Order of Court and will be docketed as such.