## Facts

- The Waterville Urban Renewal Authority condemned Charles Rancourt’s property under Maine eminent-domain procedures, and a jury assessed damages.
- Before trial, the Authority retained and paid appraiser St. Pierre to value the property; he appraised it at $27,500.
- At trial, the Authority presented its own valuation expert.
- In rebuttal, Rancourt called St. Pierre as an expert to testify to his appraisal and opinion, aiming to impeach the Authority’s valuation evidence.
- The Authority objected, asserting (1) the appraisal was prepared for and paid by the Authority, (2) a contract barred St. Pierre from disclosing appraisal information, and (3) the appraisal/opinion was privileged, including by analogy to attorney–client privilege and under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b).

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner may call as an expert witness an appraiser previously retained by the condemning authority to appraise the property at issue.
2. Whether the appraiser’s opinion is protected from trial testimony by an evidentiary privilege, including by contract, by analogy to attorney–client privilege, or by M.R.C.P. 26(b).

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment.
- The court held there is no “employer–expert” privilege preventing the appraiser from testifying for the opposing party.
- The court held M.R.C.P. 26(b) concerns pretrial discovery and does not create a testimonial privilege barring expert testimony at trial.
- The court rejected the claim that a confidentiality clause between the Authority and the appraiser could operate as an evidentiary privilege excluding relevant testimony.

## Legal Principles

- Privileges are limited and are not expanded absent a recognized common-law basis or statutory authorization.
- A party’s retention and payment of an expert does not make the expert’s valuation opinion privileged or immune from being called by the opposing party at trial.
- Contractual confidentiality provisions between a party and its expert do not create an evidentiary privilege that limits compulsory process or admissibility of relevant testimony.
- Civil discovery protections (including work-product-related limitations on compelled disclosure) do not, by themselves, establish trial incompetency or a privilege against testifying.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the landowner to call the condemning authority’s previously retained appraiser as an expert witness, holding that neither contractual confidentiality nor M.R.C.P. 26(b) created a privilege and that Maine law did not recognize an employer–expert privilege shielding the appraiser’s valuation opinion from trial testimony.


Rancourt v. Waterville Urban Renewal Auth., 223 A.2d 303 (Me. 1966)