Susan Dent and Pamela Schultz | Kennedys In the wake of COVID-19, litigators all across the United States are noticing an old, yet infrequently utilized, evidentiary tool emerge to address unexpected trial witness unavailability: the de bene esse deposition. A Latin legal term literally translated to “of well being,” the phrase refers to various acts which are… Continue reading De Bene Esse Depositions: A Trial Testimony Insurance Policy
Tag: expert testimony
Changes to Rules Governing Expert Testimony Imminent
Michael Guggeinheim | Proskauer Rose Last month, the Advisory Committee on Evidence of the Judicial Conference of the United States’ Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure voted to unanimously to recommend certain amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert witness testimony. This vote signals imminent changes that could… Continue reading Changes to Rules Governing Expert Testimony Imminent
Countering the Bad Expert: Don’t Expect Jurors to Deliberate Past the BS on Their Own
Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm | Holland & Hart In my opinion, it is one of the most interesting and important areas of social science at the moment. And if it’s not that, then it’s certainly the sassiest. A group of researchers has been focused on our susceptibility and resistance to various forms of bad information, disinformation,… Continue reading Countering the Bad Expert: Don’t Expect Jurors to Deliberate Past the BS on Their Own
Court Of Appeals Clarifies That Expert Testimony Required in Nearly All Faulty Construction Cases
Joseph Davies | Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers In a recent decision touching on many interesting issues, North Carolina’s Court of Appeals effectively determined that, in all but the most obvious cases, expert testimony is required to establish a failure to perform construction in a workmanlike fashion. Small Claims Court to Court of… Continue reading Court Of Appeals Clarifies That Expert Testimony Required in Nearly All Faulty Construction Cases
Courts Deal With “Dual-Hat” Experts: Part I
Thomas E. Spahn | McGuireWoods Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) governs testifying experts’ duty to produce “the facts or data considered by the witness in forming” his or her opinion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D) governs dramatically different non-testifying consulting experts. Not surprisingly, witnesses might switch from one role to the other, and also might possess arguably pertinent facts… Continue reading Courts Deal With “Dual-Hat” Experts: Part I