US · rules
D.V.I. LRCi 26.3
Expert Witness–Written Report; Video Taping
(a) Testimony and the Expert’s Written Report/Deposition. The testimony of an expert
witness at trial shall be based upon the opinions advanced in the written report disclosed under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) and/or elicited during the examination of the expert
in a deposition, if elicited by a party that has not proffered the expert. Experts shall not be
permitted to testify on matters beyond the scope of the subjects and the opinions expressed in
the referenced written report (or, if elicited at a deposition as set forth above).
(b) If the proffering party elicits additional opinions from the expert during the deposition,
any non-proffering party does not, by asking follow-up questions at that time, waive the right to
challenge those additional opinions as being beyond the scope, or the right to seek a further
deposition.
(c) Video Taping of Expert Discovery. Absent good cause shown, if a trial date has been
set at least 45 days in advance, and the testimony of an expert witness has not been video-taped,
and the witness is unavailable for the trial, the parties will be required to proceed to trial.
(d) Payment for Expert Witness Deposition.
(1) Unless the parties have agreed to the contrary in writing, responsibility for
compensating experts shall be according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(4)(E). Unless otherwise provided by the Court, a proposed bill for the
expert’s charges must be provided to the party seeking discovery 20 days prior to
the deposition. If the deposing party objects to the charges, prompt application shall
be made to the Court to obtain a ruling on their reasonableness before the
deposition.
(2) If an expert demands payment in advance of the deposition date, absent an
agreement to the contrary, the party seeking discovery must advance or otherwise
secure such sums.
(3) An expert’s hourly rate for a deposition that exceeds the hourly rate for consulting
with the party that retained the expert shall be presumptively unreasonable. Such a
presumption is rebuttable.
Provenance
- Source
- www.vid.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-18
- Edition
- fed-district-2026-09-19
- Content hash
e7d5ddd868d3e43f3490c4269a7833e87bfc5f69c478fa05c9d05554d7c2cf6e
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.