•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This Note proposes an approach to the problem of identification of rule 26(b)(4)(B) experts that differs from both of the approaches taken in the reported opinions. 9 Part I analyzes the language of rule 26(b) and rejects the majority approach. As a matter of statutory construction, rule 26(b )( 4)(B) governs the disclosure of the identity of nontestifying experts retained by a party in preparation for trial. Part II examines the underlying purposes of rules 26(b)(l) and 26(b)(4)(B) - to ensure adequate pretrial disclosure and to prevent unfairness in adversarial competition - and suggests that both interests may be accommodated. These interests are appropriately balanced by requiring a party to show "exceptional circumstances" to discover the name and address of a rule 26(b)(4)(B) expert, but allowing routine discovery by interrogatory of such an expert's specialty or field of expertise and a brief description of the services that the expert performed in anticipation of litigation.

Share

COinS