Laserfiche WebLink
Under modern practice and Federal rules, the names of expert witnesses, <br />background resumes, and a brief statement of the nature of the experts' <br />testimony is exchanged by the parties' attorneys in advance of trial. This <br />also applies in adminstrative proceedings, where frequently the parties will <br />stipulate to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. <br />A less often used procedure is the use of written questions served upon <br />the opposition and to be answered under oath (interrogatories). Sometimes this <br />is used to initiate discovery by asking "who are the scientist who have any <br />knowledge on this subject" or "where are your freshwater laboratories <br />located," or "whom have you consulted in bringing this lawsuit?" <br />Biologists are virtually united in their horror of the all powerful <br />discovery procedures, drafted and enacted by lawyers, which can force them to <br />photo-duplicate massive amounts of material. Some lawyers have argued that, <br />unlike conspiring executives in an antitrust case, scientists should not be <br />put through the ordeal of having filing cabinets raided. Actually, the Federal <br />Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable in Federal courts but adopted intact by <br />most States, provide for restricted discovery of an expert's data. Rule 26 <br />(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states the basic rule: <br />Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not <br />privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter <br />involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the <br />claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the <br />claim or defense of any other party, including the <br />existence, description, nature, custody, condition and <br />location of any books, documents, or other tangible things <br />and the identity-and location of persons having knowledge <br />of any discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection <br />that the information sought appears reasonably calculated <br />to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. <br />From this base, the Rules in Section 26 (b)(4) set forth an exception for <br />experts: <br />Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, <br />otherwise discoverable under the provisions of subdivision <br />(b)(1) of this rule and acquired or developed in anticipa- <br />tion of litigation or for trial,'may be obtained only as <br />follows: <br />(A)(i) A party may through interrogatories require any <br />other party to identify each person whom the other party <br />expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to state <br />the subject matter on which the expert is expected to <br />testify, and to state the substance of the facts and <br />opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a <br />summary of the grounds for each opinion. (ii) Upon motion, <br />the court may order further discovery by other means, <br />subject to such restrictions as to scope and such <br />provisions, pursuant to sudivisions (b)(4)(C) of this <br />rule, concerning fees and expenses as the court may deem <br />appropriate." (Emphasis supplied.) <br />8