Chancery Judge Larry Primeaux published this post about expert witnesses yesterday on his blog. The entire post is a must read, but I found this paragraph to be particularly interesting:

  • If you are asked in discovery to provide the information set out in MRCP 26(b)(4)(A)(i) as to the subject matter, the substance of facts and opinions, and a summary of the grounds for opinions, you must provide a substantial enough answer to give the other side a reasonable idea of what the expert’s opinions will be and what it is that the expert uses as a basis for the opinion. If you do not timely provide that information, the testimony may be excluded, or you may be severely limited by a skimpy answer. This is important, and may be crucial to your case. If you don’t have a system in place to remind you to update and supplement your discovery well in advance of trial, you’d better come up with one for your survival’s sake.

This is interesting to me because I see a lot of the “skimpy answer” in my practice, but none of the “you may be severely limited by a skimpy answer.” It would be real interesting to see an expert’s testimony limited to the skimpy answer. Lawyers who practice before Judge Primeaux are on notice that it could happen to them.