Local Rule Rule 26.3: Expert Witness–Written Report; Video Taping
D.V.I. — Civil rule
Rule 26.3. Expert Witness–Written Report; Video Taping
(a) Testimony and the Expert's Written Report/Deposition. The testimony of an expert witness at trial shall be based upon the opinions advanced in the written report disclosed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) and/or elicited during the examination of the expert in a deposition, if elicited by a party that has not proffered the expert. Experts shall not be permitted to testify on matters beyond the scope of the subjects and the opinions expressed in the referenced written report (or, if elicited at a deposition as set forth above).
(b) If the proffering party elicits additional opinions from the expert during the deposition, any non-proffering party does not, by asking follow-up questions at that time, waive the right to challenge those additional opinions as being beyond the scope, or the right to seek a further deposition.
(c) Video Taping of Expert Discovery. Absent good cause shown, if a trial date has been set at least 45 days in advance, and the testimony of an expert witness has not been video-taped, and the witness is unavailable for the trial, the parties will be required to proceed to trial.
(d) Payment for Expert Witness Deposition.
(1) Unless the parties have agreed to the contrary in writing, responsibility for compensating experts shall be according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E). Unless otherwise provided by the Court, a proposed bill for the expert's charges must be provided to the party seeking discovery 20 days prior to the deposition. If the deposing party objects to the charges, prompt application shall be made to the Court to obtain a ruling on their reasonableness before the deposition.
(2) If an expert demands payment in advance of the deposition date, absent an agreement to the contrary, the party seeking discovery must advance or otherwise secure such sums.
(3) An expert's hourly rate for a deposition that exceeds the hourly rate for consulting with the party that retained the expert shall be presumptively unreasonable. Such a presumption is rebuttable.