Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 OCTOBER 2019

Expert Disclosures: Navigating The Distinction Between Retained And Non-Retained Experts

Butler Snow LLP
Butler Snow LLP
Contributor
Butler Snow LLP

Butler Snow LLP

Some law firms promise client service. Butler Snow delivers on that promise. Surveys by respected...

View firm profile
Explore more from Butler Snow LLP

In 2010, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 was amended to require full expert reports and other disclosures for retained expert witnesses, but only summaries of anticipated opinion testimony of non-retained experts.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In 2010, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 was amended to require full expert reports and other disclosures for retained expert witnesses, but only summaries of anticipated opinion testimony of non-retained experts. During the ensuing nine years, courts have weighed in on the distinctions between retained experts and non-retained experts. Even still, the distinctions are murky.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), a full expert report is required "if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case." If the expert witness is non-retained then, under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), the party must disclose only "a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify." According to the Advisory Committee, "[f]requent examples [of non-retained expert witnesses] include physicians or other health care professionals and employees of a party who do not regularly provide expert testimony."1

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from