Communications With Non-Retained Experts May Be Subject to Disclosure
"Lehrburger explained that unlike retained experts, non-retained treating physicians 'wear a cloak of independence and lack of bias,'" write Edward M. Spiro and Christopher B. Harwood.
October 14, 2024 at 12:00 PM
8 minute read
In contrast to retained testifying experts, non-retained testifying experts are experts who had personal involvement in the events underlying the litigation, such as consultants or contractors; they are fact witnesses who are also providing expert opinions. Unlike retained experts who are subject to extensive disclosure requirements, non-retained experts need only provide a disclosure of the subject on which they intend to testify and a summary of the facts and opinions they intend to provide. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). In 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) was amended to provide express protections for retained experts' draft reports and, with certain exceptions, communications with counsel, but the same protections were not expressly extended to non-retained experts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) advisory committee's note to 2010 amendment. The Advisory Committee's notes, however, state that Rule 26(b) "does not exclude protection" for non-retained experts. Therefore, since the 2010 amendment, courts have determined whether counsels' communications with non-retained experts are discoverable on a case-by-case basis.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNY Appeals Court Grants J&J's Subpoena for Talc Expert as 'Clearly Relevant'
6 minute readDefense Counsel Can't Use Unrelated Lawsuit to Impeach Expert Witness Testimony, Judge Rules
What You Need to Know About New York Commercial Division Rule 13(c)
6 minute readImplications of SCOTUS Expert Intent Ruling for the White-Collar Bar
9 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250