Recent Decisions on the FRCP Rule 26 Amendments Pertaining to Experts in Products Liability Cases

By Zeigler, Jessalyn H.; Geer, J. Dustin | Defense Counsel Journal, January 2013 | Go to article overview

Recent Decisions on the FRCP Rule 26 Amendments Pertaining to Experts in Products Liability Cases


Zeigler, Jessalyn H., Geer, J. Dustin, Defense Counsel Journal


RECENT AMENDMENTS to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 have led to a proliferation of Motions to Strike/Exclude Expert Testimony under the Court's responsibility as a gatekeeper of information that is to be considered by a jury. Keeping apprised of recent rulings on these issues is key to effectively using experts in defending mass tort claims. This article explores the changes to Rule 26 as they pertain to experts in products cases, including how courts have handled discovery disputes involving experts following these amendments.

I. Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 Pertaining to Experts

Effective December 1, 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 was amended to protect draft expert materials and some attorney-expert communications from discovery. (1) New Rule 26(b)(4) works in conjunction with recently amended Rule 26(a) (2) to govern discovery and disclosure from experts, respectively. With respect to Rule 26(b)(4), the amendments inserted two new sections, (B) and (C):

(4) Trial Preparation: Experts.

(B) Trial-Preparation Protection for Draft Reports or Disclosures. Rules 26(b)(3)(A) and (B) protect drafts of any report or disclosure required under Rule 26(a)(2), regardless of the form in which the draft is recorded.

(C) Trial-Preparation Protection for Communications Between a Party's Attorney and Expert Witnesses. Rules 26(b)(3)(A) and (B) protect communications between the party's attorney and any witness required to provide a report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), regardless of the form of the communications, except to the extent that the communications:

(I) relate to compensation for the expert's study or testimony;

(II) identify facts or data that the party's attorney provided and that the expert considered in forming the opinions to be expressed; or

(III) identify assumptions that the party's attorney provided and that the expert relied on in forming the opinions to be expressed.

Rule 26(a)(2)(B) now provides that an expert report must contain the "facts or data considered by the witness in forming [the opinion to be expressed]," while the old Rule was more expansive and required the report to contain "the data or other information considered by the witness in forming [the opinions to be expressed]." (2) Section 26(b)(4)(C) applies work-product protections to communications between the party's attorney and a "testifying expert." (3) The court in Sara Lee v. Kraft Foods highlighted an exception under Rule 26 (b)(3)(A)(ii), which allows discovery if "the party seeking discovery 'has substantial need for the materials to prepare and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.'" (4)

II. Purposes of Rule 26 Amendments

Under old Rule 26, interpretation by courts was inconsistent. (5) The majority applied a "bright-line rule" under which matters considered by an expert in formulating an opinion, including attorney work product, were automatically discoverable. (6) On the other hand, a minority found that disclosure of core work product to a testifying expert did not affect the protection accorded to such information. (7) The majority interpretation created "undesirable effects" under the old Rule. (8) Such effects included increased discovery costs and impeded effective communication between attorneys and their experts, apparently inducing some parties to retain two separate sets of experts--one for consultation and another to testify. (9)

As the Court in Sara Lee explained, the advisory committee intended its change "to 'limit disclosure to material of a factual nature by excluding theories or mental impressions of counsel.'" (10) According to a Magistrate Judge in the District Court of Colorado, the Advisory Committee made clear "that the amendments are meant to alleviate the perceived uncertainty and rising costs associated with attorneys' limited interactions with their retained experts as a result of court opinions allowing discovery of an expert's draft reports and of all communications with counsel. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Recent Decisions on the FRCP Rule 26 Amendments Pertaining to Experts in Products Liability Cases
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.