Expert insights, legal technology trends, and best practices for working with expert witnesses
Florida strikes a balance between rigorous expert admissibility standards and practical discovery procedures, ensuring reliable testimony without unnecessary rigidity
The expert disclosure regime of Michigan is designed to foster efficient and well-informed litigation by encouraging the timely exchange of expert opinions
Utah strikes a balance between efficiency and meaningful expert discovery, providing litigants with flexibility while ensuring that opposing parties receive sufficient information to evaluate and challenge expert opinions before trial
North Carolina favors early disclosure of expert testimony, allowing opposing parties a meaningful opportunity to evaluate and challenge expert opinions before trial
Indiana follows a relatively lean, interrogatory-driven approach to expert disclosure. The rule therefore places emphasis on targeted discovery rather than broad automatic disclosure.
The expert disclosure rules of Virginia are comparatively lean and interrogatory driven, giving parties flexibility but requiring meaningful, case specific summaries rather than vague topic descriptions
Arizona tries to balance fairness and efficiency by requiring meaningful expert disclosure while leaving room for judicial discretion
The expert disclosure framework of Kentucky is practical and flexible, but comparatively less transparent than the federal model
New Mexico generally favors transparency while still preserving core litigation strategy protections as the rules permit substantial inquiry into the basis of expert opinions, compensation, and supporting data
