The February 16, 2017 post concerned a local ruling on the scope of permissible discovery concerning an opposing expert’s income and prior work. A reader wrote in with another.
The order was entered in A-15-178579-C on October 14, 2016. The plaintiff apparently served a subpoena on the experts for certain information. The court ruled the experts were required to identify their compensation for this case “but not all cases.” The experts were “not required to turn over their financial records or provide a list of cases and the amount they charge on each case.” However, they were “required to address the amount or percentage of total amount of income they derive from expert testimony work.”