Can an engineering expert witness offer his alternative design opinion without performing research and testing? The court in ELAINE BENJAMIN, v. THE FOSDICK MACHINE TOOL COMPANY, No. 11-CV-00571-JJM. United States District Court, W.D. New York. April 22, 2015 dealt with the plaintiff who got her hand entangled in a spinning reamer tool attached to an [...]
Can an expert witness be cross-examined about inconsistencies in his CV in a criminal child abuse case? A Florida court, in the case of KAREEM DANIEL FARRELL, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, No. 4D13-2589, May 13, 2015 held he should. The court stated: Appellant next called Dr. Lloyd, a biomechanist with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. [...]
Expert medical testimony regarding undisclosed medical risks that had not materialized is proper in a medical malpractice informed consent case. The Supreme Court of Tennessee in the case of White v. Beeks No. V07554 (May 18, 2015) dealt with: Ike J. White III, aged nineteen, had suffered from back pain for over a year. His [...]
The significance of a Daubert exclusion for the expert witness, counsel, and the client cannot be overstated. In the Anthony Payne, v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., March 31, 2015, the court dealt with the issue of whether counsel should be permitted additional time to designate an expert when his original expert witness [...]
The Scott Hutchison, Plaintiff v. John R. Parent, Defendant, United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division, April 27, 2015 case dealt with a Daubert challenge to an expert who offered an alternative business valuation based on admittedly “incompetent data.” The court claimed the Daubert challenge finding that the analysis was in line with the [...]
Are expert witnesses required to produce prior expert reports from unrelated cases during discovery? The US District Court in Colorado in CAROL VON SCHWAB, v. AAA FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00183-CMA-NYW, April 21, 2015 held no. The court dealt with an insurance claim due to hail storm event. The court rejected [...]
Washington Rules Regarding Expert Witness Depositions and Interrogatories Washington Civil Rule 26(b)(5)(A)(ii) allows a party to depose all experts its opponent expects to call at trial. Washington Rules do not specifically limit the time allowed for the taking of a deposition, but Rule 30(b)(3) states that a court may increase of decrease the allowed time [...]
Indiana Rules Regarding Expert Witness Depositions and Interrogatories There is no general right to depose expert witnesses in Indiana, even those that are expected to testify at trial. However, Rule 26(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure provides that, upon motion, a court may order discovery beyond the generally allowed means, discussed in the [...]
Virginia Rules Regarding Expert Witness Depositions and Interrogatories Rule 4:1(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia allows for the deposition of experts who are expected to testify at trial. Virginia Rules do not specify a time limit for the taking of depositions, but Rule 4:5(b)(3) provides that the court may increase or [...]
New Jersey Rules Regarding Expert Witness Depositions and Interrogatories Under Rule 4:10-2(d)(2) of the New Jersey Court Rules, experts who are required to furnish reports (as described in the following section) may be subject to deposition as to the opinions stated in their reports. See also Pontidis v. Shavelli, 686 A.2d 1275, 1277 (N.J. Super. [...]