Georgia Expert Witness Report Rules

Are Expert Witness Reports Required in Georgia?

In Georgia, expert witness reports are not universally required by state law or court rules. Instead, the Georgia Civil Practice Act mandates the disclosure of expert witness information primarily through interrogatories and depositions pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(b)(4)(A). This statute allows a party to request the identification of each expert witness expected to testify and to obtain the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify. In certain specialized cases, such as medical malpractice, pretrial expert reports might be required by statute or court order. The disclosure of expert information is typically governed by a trial court's scheduling order, which sets specific deadlines for the exchange of expert information, often requiring the plaintiff to disclose experts well before the trial date.

What is Required in a Georgia Expert Witness Report?

While Georgia does not generally require pretrial expert reports, when such reports are mandated by the court or applicable law, they should include specific details to ensure compliance. These reports may need to contain:

• The expert's opinions and the bases for those opinions.
• Data or other information considered by the expert in forming opinions.
• Any exhibits used to support the expert's opinions.
• The expert’s qualifications, including publications and prior testimony.
• The compensation paid for the expert's study and testimony.

Georgia's approach differs from the federal standard seen in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which generally requires more formal written reports in federal cases.

Scope and Authorship of the Report

In cases where expert reports are required in Georgia, the expert themselves typically drafts and signs the report. The extent of attorney involvement is generally limited to ensuring that the report complies with procedural requirements and effectively communicates the necessary information. The report's scope may vary depending on the nature of the expert testimony or the specifics of the case. In some instances, an attorney may assist in organizing data or suggesting areas of focus, but the opinions and conclusions must be those of the expert.

Missing, Deficient, and Untimely Reports

Failure to provide an expert report when required, or providing one that is incomplete or late, can lead to significant consequences. Courts in Georgia may exclude the expert's testimony at trial if the disclosure requirements under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(b)(4)(A) are not met. In some instances, the court may impose sanctions or grant continuances to address any prejudice caused by the deficient report. The procedural rules emphasize the importance of timely and complete expert disclosures to ensure fair trial proceedings.

Original, Supplemental, and Rebuttal Reports

In Georgia, distinctions between original, supplemental, and rebuttal reports are not explicitly outlined in state procedural rules but may be guided by court orders or local rules. Original reports, when required, establish the expert's opinions and bases. Supplemental reports may be necessary to update or correct initial disclosures if new information becomes available. Rebuttal reports, while not specifically addressed in Georgia law, might be permitted to counter opposing expert testimony if allowed by court order. The timing and scope of these reports depend on the court's directives and the case's needs.

Relevant State Rules and Legal Requirements

The disclosure of expert witness information in Georgia is governed primarily by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(b)(4)(A), which outlines the use of interrogatories and depositions for obtaining expert information. Unlike the federal system, which requires detailed written reports in most cases, Georgia relies on these procedural tools to facilitate expert discovery. Key cases interpreting these rules emphasize the discretionary power of trial courts to manage expert disclosures through tailored scheduling orders. Differences from federal practice include the absence of a blanket requirement for written reports and a greater reliance on depositions to explore expert opinions.