In Domako v. Rowe, 438 Mich. 347; 475 N.W.2d 30 (1991), the defense counsel in a medical malpractice case conducted an ex parte interview with the plaintiff's treating physician, who had repaired the damage defendant allegedly caused in a prior surgery. The treating physician told the defense counsel that he did not believe that the defendant had been negligent. 438 Mich. at 350-351. The plaintiff's counsel accused the treating physician of violating the physician-patient privilege and refused to allow the defense counsel to depose him. 438 Mich. at 351. Eventually, the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the limited issue whether the ex parte interview violated the physician-patient privilege. 438 Mich. at 352. The Court concluded that there was no violation, because the plaintiff had already waived her privilege. 438 Mich. at 356-357. The Court held that the plaintiff could therefore not assert the privilege for the limited purpose of preventing the ex parte interview: An attempt to use the privilege to control the timing of the release of information exceeds the purpose of the privilege and begins to erode the purpose of waiver by repressing evidence. Both consequences are anathema to the open discovery policy of our state. The statute and the court rule both allow waiver, thus striking an appropriate balance between encouraging confident disclosure to one's physician and providing full access to relevant evidence should a charge of malpractice follow treatment. 438 Mich. at 355. The Court then concluded that the ex parte interview was permissible informal discovery. 438 Mich. at 357-361.