The following is the text of the parts of Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which deal directly with expert discovery, in civil actions:
Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure
(a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover Additional Matter.
* * *
(2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.
(A) In addition to the disclosures required by paragraph (1), a party shall disclose to other parties the identity of any person who may be used at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(B) Except as otherwise stipulated or directed by the court, this disclosure shall, with respect to a witness who is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony, be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report shall contain a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor; the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years.
(C) These disclosures shall be made at the times and in the sequence directed by the court. In the absence of other directions from the court or stipulation by the parties, the disclosures shall be made at least 90 days before the trial date or the date the case is to be ready for trial or, if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party under paragraph (2)(B), within 30 days after the disclosure made by the other party. The parties shall supplement these disclosures when required under subdivision (e)(1).
* * *
(b) Discovery Scope and Limits. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:
* * *
(4) Trial Preparation: Experts.
(A) A party may depose any person who has been identified as an expert whose opinions may be presented at trial. If a report from the expert is required under subdivision (a)(2)(B), the deposition shall not be conducted until after the report is provided.
(B) A party may, through interrogatories or by deposition, 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 as provided in Rule 35(b) or upon a 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.
(C) Unless manifest injustice would result, (i) the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under this subdivision; and (ii) with respect to discovery obtained under subdivision (b)(4)(B) of this rule the court shall require the party seeking discovery to pay the other party a fair portion of the fees and expenses reasonably incurred by the latter party in obtaining facts and opinions from the expert.
* * *
[End of Expert Discovery Provisions of FRCP 26]
The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993) rejected the Frye test and Frye-plus tests for the admissibility of certain scientific evidence (see admissibility tests lecture). Instead of "general acceptance" in the scientific community, the Daubert test requires an independent judicial assessment of reliability. Among other purposes, the Daubert test is intended to end the current "battle of the experts" state of affairs. The Daubert decision involved the claim that Bendectin caused birth defects, and even though it was intended to clear the way for admitting novel scientific evidence (like DNA), it has instead turned out to be a firestorm of controversy.
Continue reading "Admissibility of Scientific Evidence Under Daubert" »
No. 3968
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia
293 F. 1013; 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 1712; 54 App. D.C. 46; 34
A.L.R. 145
December 3, 1923, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
CORE TERMS: blood pressure, deception, systolic, conscious, discovery, scientific principle, expert testimony, scientific, experiments, admissible, falsehood, admitting, skilled, deduced
OPINION BY: VAN ORSDEL
OPINION: [*1013] Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, and MARTIN, Presiding Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice. Appellant, defendant below, was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree, and from the judgment prosecutes this appeal.
In California Psychiatric Experts Are Under the Same Privilege/Confidentiality Obligations as are Treating Psychiatrists
California Appellate Decision Regarding Privilege/Confidentiality Duties of Non-Treating, Psychiatric Experts: see PETTUS V. COLE, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 46 (1996)
Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California
from the Headnotes:
"Two psychiatrists violated the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act(Civ. Code, S 56 et seq.) when they disclosed the details of their evaluations of an employee who sought stress-related disability leave to his supervisors at work without his written authorization. Civ. Code, S 56.10, subd. (c)(8)(B), limits permissible disclosure to a description of any "functional limitations" that may have entitled the employee to leave work, and also explicitly prohibits disclosure of "medical cause." These psychiatrists described in detail the employee's hostility toward the company and a coworker, his drinking habits, and other details about his personal life, disclosures which went well beyond a description of "functional limitations."
"(3) Employer and Employee S 7--Contracts of Employment--Medical Care-- Unauthorized Disclosure of Medical Information to Patient's Employer-- Employee's "Patient" Status.
An employee who was evaluated by two psychiatrists in connection with his request for stress-related disability leave was a "patient" within the meaning of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, S 56 et seq.) and thus was protected by the act's provisions."
