Washington Expert Witness Report Rules

Are Expert Witness Reports Required in Washington?

In Washington, expert witness reports are not universally mandated by state law for every case. However, the Washington Superior Court Civil Rule 26 outline specific requirements for disclosing expert witness information during the discovery process. Under Wash. Superior Ct. Civ. R. 26(b)(5), a party can request, through interrogatories, the identification of each expert witness expected to testify at trial, including the subject matter and a summary of the facts and opinions they will present. While a statewide rule does not explicitly demand a written report, local practices often dictate the pretrial exchange of such reports if they exist or are requested.

The timing for disclosing expert information typically depends on case scheduling orders, which vary by jurisdiction. For example, King County’s case schedule dictates deadlines for the disclosure of primary experts and the service of their reports. Should a party fail to meet these deadlines, the court may apply sanctions, such as the exclusion or limitation of the expert’s testimony, as per CR 37.

What is Required in a Washington Expert Witness Report?

If an expert witness report is prepared or requested, it must include certain key elements, although the specifics can vary. Generally, the report should contain:

• Opinions and Bases: A detailed account of the expert's opinions and the foundational data or information supporting these opinions.
• Exhibits and Data: Any exhibits or data considered in forming the opinions.
• Qualifications of the Expert: A summary of the expert’s qualifications, including their background and experience relevant to the case.
• Compensation Details: Information regarding the compensation received or expected for the expert's study and testimony.

Washington's disclosure requirements may deviate from federal standards, as state rules do not automatically impose a written report requirement akin to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.

Scope and Authorship of the Report

In Washington, the authorship of an expert witness report can involve both the expert and legal counsel. While the expert is responsible for the substantive content, attorneys may assist in organizing or formatting the report. However, the core opinions and analyses should remain the expert's own to ensure credibility and admissibility under the Frye/Daubert standards, which Washington follows for determining the admissibility of expert testimony.

The report's scope may also adjust according to the type of expert testimony or specific case requirements. For instance, complex cases may necessitate more detailed reports than simpler matters.

Missing, Deficient, and Untimely Reports

Failure to provide a complete or timely expert witness report can lead to significant consequences in Washington. Courts may exclude the expert’s testimony or impose other sanctions under CR 37 for non-compliance with disclosure obligations. This exclusion can severely impact a party's ability to present their case effectively.

In some instances, courts may offer remedies such as allowing continuances to enable proper disclosure, but these are not guaranteed and depend on the circumstances and judicial discretion.

Original, Supplemental, and Rebuttal Reports

Washington law does not expressly define distinctions between original, supplemental, and rebuttal reports in the same manner as federal rules. However, the need for additional reports often arises from the evolving nature of expert opinions as new information becomes available during litigation.

• Original Reports: Typically the initial disclosure of expert opinions.
• Supplemental Reports: May be necessary if new information affects the expert’s original opinions.
• Rebuttal Reports: Can be used to address or counter opposing expert opinions.

The timing and admissibility of these reports are generally governed by case-specific scheduling orders and court discretion.

Relevant State Rules and Legal Requirements

The primary rule governing expert disclosures in Washington is Washington Superior Court Civil Rule 26, which outlines the procedures for identifying and disclosing expert witness information. While the rule provides a framework, local court rules and case-specific orders often refine these requirements.

• Key Cases: Although specific case law interpreting these rules is limited, courts consistently emphasize the importance of adhering to disclosure timelines and requirements to ensure fair trial proceedings.
• Differences from Federal Practice: Unlike the federal system, Washington does not impose an automatic written report requirement, highlighting the importance of local rules and practices in guiding disclosure obligations.

Understanding these nuances is crucial for legal professionals navigating expert witness disclosures in Washington, ensuring compliance and the effective use of expert testimony in litigation.