Understanding a Motion to Compel Disclosure of Expert Opinion in Connecticut

What Is a Motion to Compel Disclosure of Expert Opinion?

“A trial court may issue a scheduling order for the timely disclosure of the plaintiff's expert witnesses. Practice Book § 13-4 (4) authorizes a trial court to impose sanctions for failure to comply with such a scheduling order.” (McVerry v. Charbvh (2006) 96 Conn. App. 589, 590.)

Practice Book § 13-4 (2) governs disclosure of experts whom parties have retained in preparation for litigation but whom they do not expect to call to testify at trial. ”(Millbrook Owners Assn. v. Hamilton Standard (2001) 257 Conn. 1, 7.)

Practice Book § 13-4 (4), which governs the disclosure of experts whom parties expect to call to testify at trial, provides in relevant part that:

“[A]ny plaintiff expecting to call an expert witness at trial shall disclose the name of that expert ... within a reasonable time prior to trial.... If disclosure of the name of any expert expected to testify at trial is not made in accordance with this subdivision ... such expert shall not testify if, upon motion to preclude such testimony, the judicial authority determines that the late disclosure:

will cause undue prejudice to the moving party; or
will cause undue interference with the orderly progress of trial in the case; or
involved bad faith delay of disclosure by the disclosing party....”

(McVerry v. Charbvh (2006) 96 Conn. App. 589, 594.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Section 13-4 (4)'s provision “is reasonably clear and plainly requires a plaintiff to disclose:

the name of the expert witness;
the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify;
the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; and
a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

(Wexler v. Demaio (2006) 280 Conn. 168, 180-81 citing Menna v. Jaiman, 80 Conn. App. 131, 135, 832 A.2d 1219 (2003) [“mandates of .... § 13-4 are ‘reasonably clear’ and satisfy the first prong of the test under Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc.”); Advanced Financial Services, Inc. v. Associated Appraisal Services, Inc. (2003) 79 Conn. App. 22, 46 [“the order with which the defendants were required to comply was reasonably clear, and the defendants knew that in complying with the order they had to comply with ... § 13-4 [4]”]; Sullivan v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc. (2001) 64 Conn. App. 750, 759 [“We conclude that the court's discovery order satisfied the first prong of the Millbrook [Owners Assn., Inc.] test in that it was ‘reasonably clear.’ The order merely required the substitute plaintiff to comply with [§ 13-4].”])

Interrogatories & Depositions for Disclosures of Experts

“Practice Book § 13-4, Subdivision (1) provides in relevant part:

“Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable under the provisions of Section 13-2 and acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as follows:

‘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.’
‘Unless otherwise ordered by the judicial authority upon motion, a party may take the deposition of any expert witness disclosed pursuant to subdivision (1)(A) of this rule in the manner prescribed in the rules of practice Section 13-26 et seq. governing deposition procedure generally.’”

(Millbrook Owners Assn. v. Hamilton Standard (2001) 257 Conn. 1, 6 n.6 citing id. at Subdivision (1).)

Disclosure Through Deposition

Concerning the depositions of Experts in relation to disclosure, Practice Book § 13-4 provides in relevant part:

“Any expert witness disclosed pursuant to this rule within six months of the trial date shall be made available for the taking of that expert's deposition within thirty days of the date of such disclosure.” (Id.)

Further, “[i]n response to any such expert disclosure, any other party may disclose the same categories of information with respect to expert witnesses previously disclosed or a new expert on the same categories of information who are expected to testify at trial on the subject for that party. Any such expert or experts shall similarly be made available for deposition within thirty days of their disclosure....” (Millbrook Owners Assn. v. Hamilton Standard (2001) 257 Conn. 1, 6 n.6 quoting Practice Book Sec. 13-4, Subdivision 4.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The court's decision on whether to impose the sanction of excluding the expert's testimony ... rests within the sound discretion of the court.... The action of the trial court is not to be disturbed unless it abused its legal discretion, and [i]n determining this the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness....” (McVerry v. Charbvh (2006) 96 Conn. App. 589, 594-95.)

The Court’s Decision

It is well settled that preclusion of expert opinion and testimony is proper as a sanction because “without [a party's] expert disclosure, the [plaintiffs and] defendants [cannot] adequately prepare for trial.” (Wexler v. Demaio (2006) 280 Conn. 168, 176.)

“In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (McVerry at 595 citing Tornaquindici v. Keggi (2006) 94 Conn. App. 828, 847 [internal quotation marks omitted].)

Documents for Motion to Compel Disclosure of Expert Opinion in Connecticut

Sort By

CAVALRY SPV I, LLC v. TORRES, JR, JUAN document preview

AFFIDAVIT OF DEBT - SMALL CLAIMS

37 pages

Cavalry SPV |, LLC Plaintiff, v. JUAN TORRES JR Defendant AFFIDAVIT OF DEBT The undersigned, being duly sworn, makes the following oath: lam over 18 years old and competent to make this affidavit. Lam the Legal Administrator and employee of Cavalry Porifolio Services, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company. The servicing and collection rights of the portfolios of non-performing receivables purchased by the Plaintiff, Cavalry S…