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