“Rule 26(b)(4)(a)(1) mandates the disclosure of any experts prior to trial.” (See Stowe v. Stowe (2020) 846 S.E.2d 511, 522.)
“A party may through interrogatories require any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.” (See Long v. Joyner (2002) 155 N.C. App. 129, 135-36.)
“The Rule does require advance disclosure of expert witnesses who will testify at trial, even without a discovery request, discovery plan, or court order.” (See Stowe v. Stowe (2020) 846 S.E.2d 511, 522.)
“This rule was adopted in 1987 to expedite discovery and provide for the prompt designation of expert witnesses.” (See Briley v. Farabow (1998) 348 N.C. 537, 545.)
“By its express language, it plainly mandates that the court impose mandatory sanctions if a party fails to comply with a deadline regarding the designation of experts.” (See id.)
“Rule 26 provides the exclusive means of discovering facts and opinions held by experts, and the sequence in which discovery is to be made, first by interrogatories and then if discovery is sought by means other than interrogatories, by court order.” (See Green v. Maness (1984) 69 N.C. App. 403, 409.)
“If a party fails to identify an expert witness as ordered, the court shall, upon motion by the moving party, impose an appropriate sanction, which may include dismissal of the action, entry of default against the defendant, or exclusion of the testimony of the expert witness at trial.” (See Briley v. Farabow (1998) 348 N.C. 537, 545.)
“A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of expert opinion is subject to review only for an abuse of discretion.” (See Town of Nags Head v. Richardson (2018) 260 N.C. App. 325, 346.)
“A trial court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law." (See In re J.T.C. (2020) 847 S.E.2d 452, 469.)
“An abuse of discretion occurs only when a court makes a patently arbitrary decision, manifestly unsupported by reason." (See Johnson v. Thomasville Furn (2009) 195 N.C. App. 460.)
It is well settled that “Rule 26 provides the exclusive means of discovering facts and opinions held by experts.” (See Green v. Maness (1984) 69 N.C. App. 403, 409.)
It is also well settled that “although Rule 26 does not set forth an explicit time frame for the disclosure of expert witnesses, it does require advance disclosure of expert witnesses who will testify at trial, even without a discovery request, discovery plan, or court order.” (See Aman v. Nicholson, No. COA22-15, at *28 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2023).)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
