Pre-trial expert disclosure typically requires a written statement of the expert's identity, opinions, the bases for those opinions, the facts or data considered, qualifications, prior testimony, and compensation. Content and timing vary by jurisdiction, and a missed requirement is a common basis for excluding an economist. This guide outlines the elements, the timing, the duty to supplement, and the points specific to economic damages reports.
Pre-trial expert disclosure is the formal statement to the opposing party of the expert's expected testimony before trial. Depending on the jurisdiction it takes the form of a written report signed by the expert, an interrogatory-style answer, or another format the governing framework sets. The purpose is to identify the expert, describe the opinions, and provide their bases in time for the other side to test them through deposition and, where warranted, a motion. For an economist the disclosure is the damages report itself, and the expert witness testimony guide describes how the report, the deposition, and the trial presentation fit together.
Most frameworks call for a complete statement of all opinions and the basis and reasons for them; the facts or data considered in forming them; any exhibits that summarize or support them; the witness's qualifications, including publications for a stated number of prior years; a list of cases in which the witness testified at trial or deposition for a stated number of prior years; and a statement of compensation. Federal trial-track engagements call for the full written report; many state frameworks accept a statement of the substance of the opinions instead, sometimes through interrogatories. The inventory varies, and counsel confirms it for the case.
Disclosure deadlines are set by the scheduling order or by the framework's default. The party with the burden usually discloses first, with rebuttal disclosures due a set period afterward. Counsel should pull the scheduling order at the outset, calendar the disclosure deadline and the close of expert discovery, and give the economist the records early enough that the report is complete by the deadline; a report that omits an opinion because a record arrived late invites a dispute over whether the opinion may be offered at all.
Most frameworks impose a continuing duty to supplement when the disclosing party learns that a prior disclosure is incomplete or incorrect. For an economic report the triggers are concrete: new pay records that change the post-event stream, an updated medical or vocational opinion that changes the horizon or capacity, a revised life care plan, or a change in the trial date that shifts the valuation date and the discount period. A supplemental schedule served promptly is far better than an amended opinion offered at deposition or trial.
Three items deserve attention in an economist's disclosure. First, the facts or data considered include everything reviewed, not only what was relied upon, so the work file should be organized for production and the report should list the records. Second, the published data series, tables, and yield data used should be identified by source and edition, so the other side can check them; the present value and worklife pages show the level of specificity expected. Third, where the economist adopted another expert's opinion, for example a vocational finding on post-event capacity or a life care plan, the report says so and identifies the source, because that opinion is part of the basis of the economist's own. The rebuttal guide shows how a missing element becomes a cross-examination theme.
This page is a general overview and not legal advice. Disclosure rules vary by jurisdiction and change over time. Always confirm the governing framework, the court's scheduling order, and any local rule against primary sources for the specific case.
It depends on the jurisdiction. Federal trial-track engagements typically require a comprehensive written report; many state frameworks accept a substance-of-opinions statement, sometimes through interrogatories. In practice the economist prepares a full report in either setting because the schedules are what make the opinion defensible.
All materials the expert reviewed in forming the opinion, including those the expert chose not to rely on. Most jurisdictions read the category broadly.
New records or a changed assumption can support a supplemental report, served under the duty to supplement and within the deadlines. An undisclosed change offered for the first time at trial risks exclusion.
Request a consultation on Expert Witness Disclosure: A Practitioner Overview or call (201) 343-0700. Plaintiff and defense counsel.