The Fragmented Way You Investigate Opposing Experts Is Costing You

Investigating an opposing expert witness is one of the most critical—and most time-consuming—tasks in litigation. From searching court records and published opinions to tracking disciplinary actions and online commentary, the process often unfolds across a patchwork of disconnected databases, outdated platforms, and manual searches.

This fragmented approach doesn’t just burn time. It increases the likelihood of missing discrediting details that could weaken or disqualify the expert entirely. When attorneys operate without a centralized research system, they risk entering depositions and hearings underprepared, exposing their case—and their client—to unnecessary risk.

Siloed Research Creates Strategic Blind Spots

Even in the most sophisticated litigation teams, opposing expert investigations are often split among multiple stakeholders: associates digging through PACER, paralegals scanning LinkedIn and news archives, and consultants sifting through old case files. This decentralized approach carries several hidden costs:

• Time Inefficiency: Conducting the same research across multiple platforms leads to duplication of effort and wasted hours.
• Missed Red Flags: A key exclusion in a state court docket or a public board sanction may go undetected simply because it was buried in a siloed source.
• Inconsistent Deliverables: Without a standard format or repository, findings are often compiled in informal, incomplete reports—limiting their utility during deposition or motion practice.
• Poor Strategic Integration: If critical facts don’t reach trial counsel in time, opportunities to challenge credibility or move to exclude may be lost.

In short, fragmentation leads to friction. And in adversarial litigation, friction translates to lost leverage.

Unify Expert Research with Radar

Expert Radar addresses this problem directly—consolidating all relevant intelligence on opposing expert witnesses into one streamlined, litigation-ready report.

Radar integrates data from across the most critical expert evaluation categories:

• Courtroom Testimony and Daubert Challenges
• Professional Disciplinary Actions and Board Sanctions
• Publication History and Opinion Consistency
• Expert Witness Disclosures and Case Involvement
• Media Coverage, Online Commentary, and Reputation
• Professional Affiliations and Financial Conflicts

Rather than juggling ten disconnected sources, attorneys receive a single, cohesive report that presents the expert’s litigation and professional history in full view, flagging credibility issues that may otherwise go unnoticed.

More Than Time Saved

The benefits of a unified research tool like Radar go beyond administrative convenience:

• Enhanced Deposition Strategy: Use prior testimony and inconsistencies to formulate targeted cross-examination.
• Stronger Motions to Exclude: Incorporate citations from Radar’s findings to support Daubert challenges or requests to limit testimony.
• Improved Internal Coordination: Share standardized reports across litigation teams, ensuring continuity and informed decision-making.
• Stronger Client Positioning: Demonstrate a documented, evidence-backed approach to evaluating the opposition’s case foundation.

When expert credibility is at issue, the smallest detail—a misstatement under oath, a non-disclosed consulting relationship, a licensing lapse—can shift the balance. But only if it’s found in time, and communicated clearly.

Consolidate Intelligence. Strengthen Strategy.

Opposing expert research should be more than a reactive task—it should be a cornerstone of proactive litigation strategy. Radar enables that shift, replacing fragmented manual research with a single, integrated intelligence solution.

Instead of asking your team to chase loose threads, arm them with a tool that delivers clarity, completeness, and actionable insights in minutes, not days.