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
Tag: expert testimony
Courts Deal With “Dual-Hat” Experts: Part II
Thomas E. Spahn | McGuireWoods Last week’s Privilege Point addressed a court’s careful sorting out of discovery issues implicated when a non-testifying consulting expert created documents arguably related to his later role as a testifying expert. About two weeks later, the Southern District of New York (Judge Caproni) dealt with other issues involving non-testifying experts. In In re… Continue reading Courts Deal With “Dual-Hat” Experts: Part II
Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony
Melissa Kenney | The Subrogation Strategist Many subrogation claims involving fire losses rely heavily on expert testimony. Expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it is both relevant and reliable. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), whose standard has been incorporated into Federal Rule of Evidence 702,… Continue reading Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony
Assess Whether Your Witness Is Able to Counterpunch
Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm | Holland & Hart Attorneys know the feeling: With some of your witnesses, you just want to keep it simple, encourage them to keep their heads down, and limit the possible damage. With any luck, they’ll get through it with minimal damage to your case. But for other witnesses, testimony is an… Continue reading Assess Whether Your Witness Is Able to Counterpunch
Recent Court Order Excluding Expert Testimony Offers Useful Reminders and Lessons for Construction Litigants
Amandeep S. Kahlon | Bradley Arant Boult Cummings Construction claims often feature supporting testimony from design and/or scheduling experts, and exclusion of that testimony either by disqualification of the expert or a finding that the testimony is otherwise inadmissible can prove fatal to your claim or defense. States may vary in their requirements for admissibility… Continue reading Recent Court Order Excluding Expert Testimony Offers Useful Reminders and Lessons for Construction Litigants