Hi holiday revelers, to the extent your brains can focus from all the parties and goodies and near-continuous celebrations (and it's not even technically Christmas yet!), here is a very interesting opinion from the 11th Circuit dealing with a testifying expert disclosure issue arising from the longstanding and bitter war between Ecuador and Chevron.
Strap in (or strap it in), here's how the 11th introduces the opinion:
This case requires the Court to determine (1) the scope of discovery that can be obtained from testifying experts under Rule 26 and (2) the impact of the 2010 Amendments to Rule 26 on that discovery.Are you excited yet?
The opinion is worth a read because it provides a nice summary of the evolution of the law on expert disclosures and recent amendments, though the crux centers on allegedly work-product materials prepared by Chevron's expert and whether those materials are protected from disclosure. They are not:
In sum, neither the text of Rule 26(b)(3)(A) nor its structure, history, and rationale support extending the work-product doctrine to all testifying expert materials. It is thus no surprise that Chevron and Dr. Hinchee cannot point us to any case holding that Rule 26(b)(3)(A) applies to a testifying expert.Ok, enough legal mumbo jumbo let's get right back to our holiday celebrations:
Have a great weekend!