Oregon Expert Witness Report Rules

Are Expert Witness Reports Required in Oregon?

In Oregon, expert witness reports are not generally required by state law or court rules in civil cases. Unlike many jurisdictions, Oregon does not adhere to a procedural rule equivalent to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), which mandates the pretrial disclosure of expert reports. The Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure do not include a general expert discovery rule, and Oregon courts have consistently held that there is no inherent right to discover the identities or opinions of opposing experts before trial (Or. R. Civ. P. see Stevens v. Czerniak).

Disclosure of expert reports in Oregon typically does not occur until the trial phase. This lack of pretrial disclosure is sometimes referred to as a "trial by ambush," as parties may not encounter the opposing side's expert opinions until they are presented during trial. However, there are exceptions in specific circumstances. For instance, under ORCP 36, discovery is permitted for facts known by an expert who also serves as a fact witness, such as a treating physician. In such cases, parties may depose these experts regarding their factual observations, although opinions developed specifically for trial are not subject to disclosure.

What is Required in an Oregon Expert Witness Report?

Given Oregon's unique stance, there is no general requirement for expert witness reports in state court proceedings. Consequently, there are no state-specific deviations or unique disclosure requirements from the federal standard, as the federal standard itself is not applicable. When expert reports are voluntarily exchanged or required by court order in exceptional cases, the content may include:

• Opinions of the expert
• Bases and reasons for those opinions
• Data or other information considered in forming the opinions
• Any exhibits to be used to support the opinions
• Expert qualifications, including publications authored in the last 10 years
• Compensation to be paid for the study and testimony

Yet, such exchanges are typically achieved through stipulation or court order rather than state-imposed mandates.

Scope and Authorship of the Report

In the rare instances where expert reports are exchanged in Oregon, the drafting and signing of these reports can be conducted by the expert witness themselves, with possible involvement from legal counsel. The extent of attorney involvement is usually limited to ensuring that the report aligns with legal strategies and procedural obligations. The scope of the report may vary based on the type of expert testimony or the nature of the case, often dictated by the specific arrangements made between parties or court orders.

Missing, Deficient, and Untimely Reports

Oregon's procedural framework does not specify sanctions or consequences for failing to provide expert reports, given that they are not generally required. However, in situations where parties agree to exchange reports or a court mandates them, the consequences for missing, deficient, or untimely reports can include:

• Exclusion of expert testimony
• Imposition of sanctions
• Granting of continuances

These outcomes depend largely on the specific agreements between the parties or the discretion of the court (Or. R. Civ. P. see Oregon case law).

Original, Supplemental, and Rebuttal Reports

The concepts of original, supplemental, and rebuttal expert reports are not formally recognized under Oregon law due to the absence of a general expert report requirement. When such distinctions become relevant, they are usually governed by court orders or mutual agreements between parties. Courts may handle disputes over these filings in accordance with any stipulations made or under their discretionary powers.

Relevant State Rules and Legal Requirements

Oregon's approach to expert witness disclosures is primarily governed by the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, which lack a general expert discovery rule. The absence of a requirement for pretrial expert report disclosure aligns with state court interpretations, as seen in decisions like Stevens v. Czerniak. Without explicit statutory or procedural mandates, the practice in Oregon starkly contrasts with federal requirements and practices in other states.

In conclusion, while Oregon's rules provide a unique landscape for expert witness disclosures, parties can often navigate these challenges through voluntary agreements or court-mediated processes, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning and negotiation in civil litigation.