Connecticut Expert Witness Discovery Rules

Expert discovery in Connecticut is governed by specific rules, emphasizing disclosure, protection of communications, and structured timelines for compliance.

ByZach Barreto

Updated on

Connecticut capitol

In this article

What Is the Scope of Expert Discovery in Connecticut?

In Connecticut, expert discovery is primarily governed by the Connecticut Practice Book and related statutes. The discovery of expert information is permitted under state law, with specific provisions outlined in Conn. Practice Book § 13-4, which mandates the disclosure of expert witnesses upon request. This rule requires parties to disclose the names of expert witnesses and the "substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion." Unlike the federal system, Connecticut's framework does not fully align with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4), particularly in its treatment of expert depositions and draft reports.

Limits on expert discovery in Connecticut include a general prohibition on the discovery of draft reports and a protection of communications between counsel and expert witnesses, unless the communication relates to compensation, identifies facts or data provided by the attorney that the expert considered, or identifies assumptions that the expert relied upon in forming an opinion. This approach aligns with the federal work-product doctrine but contains state-specific nuances.

Timing and Procedure for Expert Discovery in Connecticut

Expert discovery in Connecticut occurs within a structured timeline, typically dictated by court scheduling orders. Conn. Practice Book § 13-4 specifies that expert disclosures should occur well before trial, often with plaintiff's experts disclosed 120–180 days before trial and defendant's experts shortly thereafter. This timeline ensures both parties have adequate time to prepare for trial.

Procedural steps include:

  • Interrogatories and Requests for Production: Parties may serve written interrogatories requesting detailed information about the expert's testimony and opinions.
  • Expert Depositions: Generally require agreement or leave of court, rather than being taken as a matter of right.
  • Duty to Supplement: Parties must continually update their disclosures if new information arises, as mandated by Conn. Practice Book § 13-15.

Failure to adhere to these procedures can result in sanctions, including the exclusion of expert testimony.

What Methods of Expert Discovery Are Permitted in Connecticut?

Connecticut allows several methods of expert discovery, although they are subject to specific conditions:

  • Depositions: Typically require agreement or a court order, not automatically permissible.
  • Written Interrogatories: Permitted to obtain the expert's opinions and the bases for those opinions.
  • Document Requests: Allowed for obtaining reports or materials considered by the expert.

Discovery is generally focused on testifying experts. Consulting experts are not subject to discovery unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated, which significantly parallels the federal standard.

Limits on Discovery of Expert Materials and Communications

The handling of expert materials and communications in Connecticut reflects a balance between transparency and protection of privileged information:

  • Draft Reports: Not discoverable, protecting the preliminary analyses and thoughts of experts.
  • Attorney-Expert Communications: Generally protected, with exceptions for communications related to compensation, facts/data provided by counsel, or assumptions relied upon by the expert.
  • Compensation Details: Discoverable, as they may indicate potential bias.

Significant case law in Connecticut emphasizes the importance of protecting draft reports and attorney-expert communications, aligning with the federal amendments to Rule 26(b)(4) but with state-specific interpretations.

Consequences for Noncompliance or Discovery Violations

Noncompliance with expert discovery rules in Connecticut can lead to significant consequences under Conn. Practice Book § 13-4(h):

  • Exclusion of Expert Testimony: Failure to disclose or update expert information can result in exclusion.
  • Monetary Sanctions: Courts may impose financial penalties on non-compliant parties.
  • Continuances: The court may grant extensions or delays to remedy discovery violations.

Relevant Rules and Legal Authority in Connecticut

Several key rules and statutes govern expert discovery in Connecticut:

  • Conn. Practice Book [§ 13-4](https://www.jud.ct.gov/publications/PracticeBook/PB.pdf): Outlines expert disclosure requirements.
  • Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-174: Addresses the admissibility of treating physician reports.
  • Conn. Practice Book § 13-15: Establishes the duty to supplement disclosures.
  • Conn. Practice Book § 13-4(h): Specifies sanctions for nondisclosure.

Connecticut's approach to expert discovery contains notable deviations from federal practice, particularly in the requirement of court permission for expert depositions and the emphasis on protecting draft reports and privileged communications.

About the author

Zach Barreto

Zach Barreto

Zach Barreto is a distinguished professional in the legal industry, currently serving as the Senior Vice President of Research at the Expert Institute. With a deep understanding of a broad range of legal practice areas, Zach's expertise encompasses personal injury, medical malpractice, mass torts, and defective products. His skills are particularly evident in handling complex litigation matters, including high-profile cases such as opioids litigation, NFL concussion litigation, California wildfires, 3M earplugs, Elmiron, transvaginal mesh, Roundup, Camp Lejeune, hernia mesh, IVC filters, Paraquat, Paragard, talcum powder, and Zantac.

Under his leadership, the Expert Institute’s research team has expanded impressively from a single member to a robust team of 100 professionals over the last decade. This growth reflects his ability to navigate the intricate and demanding landscape of legal research and expert recruitment effectively. Zach has been instrumental in working on nationally significant litigation matters, including cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, toxic chemical exposure, and wrongful death, among others.

At the Expert Institute, Zach is responsible for managing all aspects of the research department and developing strategic institutional relationships. He plays a key role in equipping attorneys for success through expert consulting, case management, strategic research, and expert due diligence provided by the Institute’s cloud-based legal services platform, Expert iQ. Zach holds a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science and European History from Vanderbilt University.

background image

Subscribe to our newsletter

Join our newsletter to stay up to date on legal news, insights and product updates from Expert Institute.