shutterstock.com Expert Witness Availability: Stop Second Bites at the Apple
The author proposes a rule amendment to preclude a "redo" of expert testimony. Simply stated: If a witness is unavailable, and a de bene esse deposition is completed, that witness cannot become "re-available" to testify live at trial.
May 06, 2021 at 12:00 PM
8 minute read
In the real world there are few opportunities to truly redo something. In baseball, batters can't get a fourth strike just because they missed the last pitch and struck out. So why in New Jersey civil courtrooms, when stakes are so high, should attorneys who have declared their expert witnesses "unavailable" to testify live at trial, with no affidavit explaining why they cannot appear required, be allowed to suddenly change their mind and produce the expert witness in the courtroom, with no questions asked? Not only does this practice allow for gamesmanship, the issue becomes of even greater concern when, without anyone asking questions, the witness is suddenly capable of testifying "live" in front of the jury. This is especially true in the area of medical malpractice. So, if no one else raises the question, let me. It seems the answer is simple: A change in the rules for video de bene esse testimony and it's needed today more than ever before.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 All
Johnson & Johnson Sues Plaintiffs' Talc Experts Accused of 'Widespread Deception'
5 minute read
New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Sufficiency of AOM in Med Mal Case
6 minute read
Must the Government Ensure Defendants Equal Access to Overseas Evidence?
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Monmouth Couty Bench May Soon Have a New Superior Court Judge
- 2Fate of Ethics Panel—and Cuomo Book Deal Probe—Is in Top Court's Hands as January Arguments Approach
- 3How a Second Trump Presidency Could Shape IP
- 4Pa. Firms Set to Finish Year Strong, Thanks to Demand Uptick, Shorter Collections Cycle
- 5It's Not About You: Lessons of the Mock Trial
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
