Action for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the No-Fault Act; Motion to quash subpoenas; Independent medical examination (IME); MCL 500.3151; Expert witnesses; Credibility; Potential bias; MCL 500.3151(2)(b); Scope of discovery of the financial interests of expert witnesses retained in no-fault matters to perform IMEs on behalf of an insurer; MCR 2.302(B)(4); MCR 2.305(A)(1) & (2); MCR 2.305(A)(4)(a); Micheli v Michigan Auto Ins Placement Facility; Discovery of tax returns; Fassihi v St Mary Hosp of Livonia; Two-year limitation

The court held that while the trial court properly allowed discovery of appellants-expert medical witnesses’ financial records, it erred by granting plaintiff access to their “personal and business tax returns because the relevant information was otherwise discoverable by reviewing appellants’ Forms W-2 and Forms 1099.” It also held that “the trial court erred by ordering appellants to produce four years of records when, at most, plaintiff should receive records for two years preceding the date of each IME performed.” Plaintiff sued defendants for PIP benefits based on injuries she allegedly sustained in two separate motor-vehicle collisions. Defendants named appellants as expert witnesses and retained them to perform IMEs of plaintiff. Plaintiff served subpoenas on appellants, requesting that they produce personal tax information. They moved to quash the subpoenas. The trial court denied their motion, finding the information was “relevant to discovering potential bias and their ability to testify as expert,” but allowing them to redact certain information. On appeal, the court rejected appellants’ argument that plaintiff should not be permitted to discover their financial records to learn their gross incomes because such information is only minimally relevant to the issue of bias. “The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing plaintiff to discover appellants’ gross incomes in order to explore their credibility and potential bias. Information about appellants’ gross incomes is also relevant to discovering whether they were qualified to perform IMEs under MCL 500.3151(2)(b).” But the court agreed with appellants that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing discovery of their tax returns, noting there were “alternative means to obtain the relevant information without jeopardizing the privacy of appellants and their families.” Plaintiff conceded “that appellants’ W-2s and 1099s” were sufficient. Finally, the court agreed with appellants that the trial court should have limited the scope of plaintiff’s discovery. While she showed “entitlement to appellants’ W-2s and 1099s to discover possible bias and address whether appellants are qualified to testify under MCL 500.3151(2)(b), the trial court abused its discretion by requiring appellants to provide four years of tax records when the statute is only concerned with the year preceding the date of each IME performed.” Affirmed in part, modified in part, and remanded.