![]() Maryland treats non-testimony expert information like it would any other form of work product and requires parties to demonstrate a "substantial need" for such information and show that they would experience "undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means." See Maryland Rule 2-402(d), 2-402(g)(2).įor testimonial experts, the Maryland Rules permit parties to obtain the substance of expected testimony in the form of interrogatories, a request for any written reports and depositions. Like the Federal Rules, Maryland distinguishes between testimonial and non-testimonial experts, providing liberal discovery for the former and virtually none for the latter. While the Maryland Rules do not contain the mandatory disclosure requirements of the Federal Rules, the other discovery tools provided are virtually identical. ![]() But those who fall short may finds obstacles to the admissibility of expert testimony. While these forms of disclosure are mandatory, courts have, in actual practice, varied on the comprehensiveness of the required report or disclosure. Other experts, like treating doctors for example, are not required to provide such formal reports, but parties offering such testimony must still disclose the subject matter of expected testimony and a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify. (vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case. (v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition and (iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years (iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them (ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them (i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them If the expert was retained to testify in the case, or is an employee of the party whose duties regularly involve giving expert testimony, Federal Rule 26(a)(2)()B) requires the expert to prepare and sign a written report which contains: In the case of testimonial experts, the need to prepare for cross-examination is sufficiently great that the Federal Rules require that many aspects of anticipated testimony be disclosed even without a specific discovery request. on showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means." Fed. ![]() Thus, according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, one may only "discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial, only. Since there is no need to prepare for cross-examination in the case of those experts who will not even appear at trial, there is truly no need for discovery. Non-testimonial experts are a part of the internal trial strategy and analysis of the case, and their opinions and information are protected from discovery in a manner quite similar to attorney work product. ![]() There are basically two types of experts: (1) Non-Testimonial Experts, who have merely been consulted to provide assistance in litigation analysis or strategy and (2) Testimonial Experts, who are expected to be called at trial. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the availability of discovery tools to obtain expert opinions and to determine the bases for such opinions depends on the type of expert for whom discovery is sought. Thus, one must pay close attention to federal and state provisions regarding the discovery of expert testimony. Without designating experts sufficiently in advance of trial, and properly disclosing the nature of expected testimony, a party may be precluded from calling these persons to the witness stand. ![]() To preserve the right to call expert witnesses, parties must be careful to adhere strictly to the rules and orders of court. In fact, even where certain lay witnesses may offer testimony bordering on expert opinion, it would be wise to designate these persons as expert witnesses to the extent that any aspect of their testimony would be regarded as expert opinion. In so doing, the attorney must be careful to designate all persons who could potentially be called as expert witnesses to preserve the ability to present the most beneficial testimony at trial. Either in responding to formal discovery or in complying with pre-trial orders, a party must generally designate all expert witnesses within a reasonable time prior to the trial itself. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |