To comply with Superior Court Rule 26(b)(4) regarding expert disclosures, party does not need formal report but does need to identify the expert, his/her opinion, and bases for opinion so opposing party has adequate notice of expected testimony.

In August 2016, the plaintiff’s counsel e-mailed defense counsel a list of topics he expected the plaintiff’s medical expert to testify about at trial. The e-mail was sent before the plaintiff’s deadline to disclose “expert reports (or Rule 26(b)(4) disclosures)” under the applicable Scheduling Order. Three months after the deadline expired, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the e-mail alone was insufficient to meet the plaintiff’s prima facie burden of establishing causation and damages. The court disagreed, distinguished prior case law, and held that the e-mail disclosure was sufficient to satisfy Rule 26(b)(4). The defendant’s motion was denied.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2^nd Quarter, April 2017}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2017 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}