Expert Report Containing Notes Qualifies as Draft Not Subject to Discovery

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
October 9, 2019
2759 Commercial Printing, NEC
323111 Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books)
expert testimony, discovery
daubert, expert testimony, admissibility, discovery, rule 702, reliability, Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii), Rule 26(b)(3)(A), Rule 26(b)(4), expert draft report, expert qualifications, relevance

County of Maricopa v. Office Depot Inc.
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175695
US
Federal Court
Federal
United States District Court
Kent Ratliff, Bruce Strombom (plaintiff); Patrick D. Krivoshia (defendant)
Lanza

Summary

In denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 37, which specifies sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, court finds note-containing version of expert report is a draft not subject to discovery under Rule 26.

See Also

County of Maricopa v. Office Depot Inc.

In denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 37, which specifies sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, court finds note-containing version of expert report is a draft not subject to discovery under Rule 26.