“Counsel for respondent quite candidly admitted at the oral argument on this petition that obtaining Dr. Nathanson’s letter would possibly enable him to impeach Dr. Nathanson at trial. While this would qualify as a legitimate and worthy aim, we do not believe that it is a showing of a substantial need under the rule”
How later courts described this case
- “Counsel for respondent quite candidly admitted at the oral argument on this petition that obtaining Dr. Nathanson’s letter would possibly enable him to impeach Dr. Nathanson at trial. While this would qualify as a legitimate and worthy aim, we do not believe that it is a showing of a substantial need under the rule”
- "Some of the language, and all of the spirit, of Hickman v. Taylor was codified in the federal civil rules amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The Kentucky civil rules closely follow the federal rules and actually are cut from the federal cloth (4)27"
- "Prelitigation consultative evaluations are encouraged; if there is no confidentiality with them, the procedure will not be utilized."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WILHOIT, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority because it appears that the defendant’s request to obtain the letter of evaluation was based on mere conjecture that the letter might contain material which could be used to impeach Dr. Na-thanson. See Hauger v. Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co., 216 F.2d 501 (7th Cir.1954).