loading please wait..

Is Your Litigation Opponent Entitled to Know the Identity of Your E-Discovery Consultant?

 

If you consult an expert to discuss e-discovery issues arising in litigation or hire a computer forensics consultant to help address technical issues, but they will not testify at trial, must you disclose their identities to your opponent?

As is the case with all good legal questions, it depends. In many courts, probably not absent exceptional circumstances.

 

Identities of Non-Testifying Experts Generally Not Discoverable

The issue of whether non-testifying expert witnesses must be identified recently arose in Liverperson, Inc. v. 24/7 Customer, Inc., No. 14 Civ. 1559 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2015), in which one party wanted language in a protective order requiring identification of persons with whom documents designated as “highly confidential – attorneys eyes only” were shared.

However, the court denied the request citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D) that states, absent exceptional circumstances,

. . . a party may not, by interrogatories or deposition, discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial.

The court in Liveperson, following what it believed to be the “predominant” rule among courts, and citing (among other cases) Ager v. Jane C. Stormont Hospital and Training School for Nurses, 622 F.2d 496, 500-01 (10th Cir. 1980), concluded that Rule 26(b)(4)(D) also protected the identity of non-testifying experts. As a result, the court refused to add the provision of the protective order.

 

But…There are Contrary Views

Despite the court’s opinion in Liveperson, some courts permit litigants to request disclosure of non-testifying experts generally following Baki v. B. F. Diamond Constr. Co., 71 F.R.D. 179 (D. Md. 1976). The court in Baki concluded

that the names and addresses, and other identifying information, of experts, who have been retained or specially employed in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who are not expected to be called as witnesses at trial, may be obtained through properly framed interrogatories without any special showing of exceptional circumstances in the absence of some indication that such information by reason of facts peculiar to the case at issue, is irrelevant, privileged, or for some other reason should not be disclosed.

 

Bottom Line?

The take away?  Whatever side of the argument you happen to be on, hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

As is the case with all contested legal issues, it might depend on how the judge views the issue. In fact, some courts are divided internally over the question. See, e.g. In re: Welding Fume Product Liability Litigation,  No. 1:03-CV-17000. MDL Docket No. 1535 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 19, 2008) (observing “of the four district court opinions from the Fifth Circuit that address the issue of whether the identities of consulting, non-testifying experts may be discovered, two cases followed the rule Set out in Baki and allowed discovery, two cases followed the rule in Ager. . . .”).

Posted on August 7, 2015 in Attorney Client Privilege and Attorney Work Product, Court Rules, FRCP, General Legal, Scope of Discovery

About the Author

Chad Main is an attorney and the founder of Percipient. Prior to founding Percipient, Chad worked as a litigator in Los Angeles and Chicago. He is a member of the Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program Committee and may be reached at cmain@percipient.co.