Section 3.39 Evidence Allowed

• Library: Discovery 2015

In the following cases, evidence or testimony was permitted even though not contained in answers to interrogatories:

· A witness who should have been identified in an interrogatory answer but was not may be permitted to testify at trial if the objecting party neither filed a motion to compel nor sought any sanctions and, instead, began the trial with the interrogatory remaining unanswered. Trident Group, LLC v. Miss. Valley Roofing, Inc., 279 S.W.3d 192, 202 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009).

· In Lau v. Pugh, 299 S.W.3d 740, 754 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009), the appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling admitting the testimony of a witness who had not been disclosed in interrogatory responses. The trial court was not obliged to offer the objecting party the opportunity to interview or depose the witness before she testified.

· When a nonretained expert was listed in an interrogatory answer and the opposing party had time to depose the expert before trial, the trial court did not err in allowing the expert’s testimony at trial. Beaty v. St. Luke’s Hosp. of Kansas City, 298 S.W.3d 554, 559 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009).

· Although a party failed to disclose specific damages requested by an interrogatory, the trial court was within its discretion to admit evidence of the damages at trial when the opposing party failed to object to its admission. Saddleridge Estates, Inc. v. Ruiz, 323 S.W.3d 427, 436 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).

· Even if a party fails to supplement interrogatory answers, certain evidence may be admitted at trial if the opposing party learns of the evidence through deposition testimony before trial. See Wiley v. Homfeld, 307 S.W.3d 145, 152 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (upholding the admission of expenses for future medical treatment); Campbell v. Tenet Healthsystem, DI, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 632, 639 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (upholding the admission of a witness’s testimony).

· In Stanford v. Morgan, 588 S.W.2d...