Expert Witness Depositions in Nursing Home

Injury Cases: Taking and Defending

Depositions

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 1.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2019

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A

Mark A. Cox, Founder, Mark A. Cox, Edmond, Okla.

Monica C. Fillmore, Attorney, Burns White, Cherry Hill, N.J.

Joel E. Smith, Partner, Kosieradzki Smith Law Firm, Plymouth, Minn.

Tips for Optimal Quality

Sound Quality

If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality

of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet

connection.

If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial

1-866-869-6667 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please

send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address

the problem.

If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.

Viewing Quality

To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,

press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Continuing Education Credits

In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your

participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance

Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar.

A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email

that you will receive immediately following the program.

For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926

ext. 2.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Program Materials

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please

complete the following steps:

• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a

PDF of the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.

• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

5/7/2019 Mark A. Cox

Preparing Your Expert for Deposition

Make sure expert has all necessary evidence

1 week before deposition

Day before deposition

Outline of Opinions

Make sure expert has all necessary evidence

5/7/2019 Mark A. Cox 6

All necessary evidence does not mean ALL evidence available.

Prepare your expert how to handle questions about not reviewing everything

1 week before deposition

5/7/2019 Mark A. Cox 7

Not too soon, not too late

In person

Expert needs to be totally prepared to visit

Gives enough time for corrections or follow upThis Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

Day before deposition

5/7/2019 Mark A. Cox 8

Meet in person

Review file

Ensure expert is perfect

Go over outline

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

Outlines

5/7/2019 Mark A. Cox 9

To outline or not to outline, that is the question.

If no report, I outline

5/7/2019Mark A. Cox

mark@markcoxlaw.com 10

Prepare for examination

Expert will not work on the fly

Talk about objections

Talk about breaks

Assure protection

Stay in your lane

Defend then take deposition

Deposing the opponent’s expert: Strategies for maximizing the

testimonyMonica Chheda Fillmore, Esq

Burns White LLC

mcfillmore@burnswhite.com

Background of the Expert

12

Examine the credentials of the expert:

• Academic background

• Work history

• Board certifications

• Organization memberships

• Publications and Presentations

• Past Expert work

Background of the Expert

13

• Comprehensive list of what they reviewed before, during and after writing the report.

• What materials they did or did not ask for.

• Notes taken during review and information from retaining counsel.

• Independent examinations and research.

Materials Reviewed

14

• Limiting opinions to the four corners of the report.

• Rooting out the extraneous details to get a simplified summary of their opinions.

• Determining the factual basis for the opinions.

• Knowing the case law you intend to rely upon for any dispositive motions or motions in limine.

• Use of hypotheticals.

Nailing Down the Opinion

15

Strategies for challenging opinions

16

• Being able to respond to new information at deposition.

• Deciding what to elicit at deposition and what to save for trial.

• Knowing the testimony and records to challenge the basis of current and new opinions.

Strategies for challenging opinions

17

Cherry Hill, NJ | Cleveland, OH | Harrisburg, PA | Philadelphia, PA | Pittsburgh, PA

Princeton, NJ | Wheeling, WV | Wilkes-Barre, PA | Wilmington, DE

burnswhite.com

18

Joel E. Smith

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

Expert Witness Depositions in Nursing Home Injury Cases: Taking

and Defending Depositions

Strafford May 8, 2019

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

RAISING AND DEFENDING

OBJECTIONS

1. Professional Conduct

2. Proper Objections

3. Improper Objections

Model Rule 3.4: “fairness to opposing party and counsel”

Model Rule 3.4(a): “A lawyer shall not … unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence”

Redwood v. Dobson, 476 F.3d 462, 469 (7th Cir. 2007): Obstructive deposition tactics = ethical violations and sanctionable violations of rules of civil procedure

20

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

RAISING AND DEFENDING

OBJECTIONS Model Rule 8: “maintain the integrity” of the profession

Model Rule 8.4(d): misconduct to “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice”

Horton v. Maersk Line, Ltd., 249 F.R.D. 690, 698 (S.D. Ga. 2013)

Ross v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 197 F.R.D. 646, 664 (W.D. Mo. 2000)

Zottola v. Anesth. Consult. Of Savannah, P.C., 2012 WL 6824150 at *6 (S.D. Ga. June 7, 2012

1. Professional Conduct

2. Proper Objections

3. Improper Objections

21

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

RAISING AND DEFENDING

OBJECTIONS Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3): Preserves all objections for trial unless the basis of the objection might have been corrected if raised at the deposition.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B)(i): “Error or Irregularity” re …

• “the manner or taking the deposition”

• “the form of a question or answer”

• “a party’s conduct”

1. Professional Conduct

2. Proper Objections

3. Improper Objections

22

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

RAISING AND DEFENDING

OBJECTIONS Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(c)(2): “An objection must be stated concisely and in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner.”

Two Schools of Jurisprudence

1. “Object to Form” only

Damaj v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 164 F.R.D. 559, 561 (N.D. Okla. 1995)

2. “Objections to Form or Foundation”

Sec. Nat. Bank of Sioux City, Iowa v. Abbott Labs., 299 F.R.D. 595, 601-03 (N.D. Iowa 2014)

1. Professional Conduct

2. Proper Objections

3. Improper Objections

23

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

RAISING AND DEFENDING

OBJECTIONSPROHIBITED

• Witness Coaching

• Passing Notes

Hall v. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 525, 528 (E.D. Pa. 1993)

Vnuk v. Berwick Hosp. Co., 2016 WL 907714 at *4 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2106)

• Text Messages

Ngai v. Old Navy, 2009 WL 2391282 at *1 (D.N.J. July 31, 2009)

1. Professional Conduct

2. Proper Objections

3. Improper Objections

24

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

RAISING AND DEFENDING

OBJECTIONSPROHIBITED

• Speaking Objections

• “If you know”

McDonough v. Keniston, 188 F.R.D. 22, 24 (D. N.H. 1998)

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Serrano, 2012 WL 28071 at *5 (D. Kan. Jan. 5, 2012)

• Vagueness or “Lack of Understanding”

Hall v. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 525, 530, no. 10 (E.D. Pa. 1993)

1. Professional Conduct

2. Proper Objections

3. Improper Objections

25

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

RAISING AND DEFENDING

OBJECTIONSPROHIBITED

• Excessive Objections

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2)

Am. Directory Serv. Agency, Inc. v. Beam, 131 F.R.D. 15, 18-19 (D. D.C. 1990)

1. Professional Conduct

2. Proper Objections

3. Improper Objections

In re Stratosphere Corp. Sec. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 614 619 (D. Nev. 1998)

26

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

RAISING AND DEFENDING

OBJECTIONS

1. Professional Conduct

2. Proper Objections

3. Improper Objections

27

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

POST-DEPOSITION

STRATEGIES

1. Additional Discovery

2. Motions in Limine

3. Errata Sheets

28

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

POST-DEPOSITION

STRATEGIES

1. Additional Discovery

2. Motions in Limine

3. Errata Sheets

29

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

POST-DEPOSITION

STRATEGIES

1. Additional Discovery

2. Motions in Limine

3. Errata Sheets

30

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

POST-DEPOSITION

STRATEGIES

1. Additional Discovery

2. Motions in Limine

3. Errata Sheets

31

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

POST-DEPOSITION

STRATEGIES

1. Additional Discovery

2. Motions in Limine

3. Errata Sheets

Is the expert necessary?

Is the expert qualified?

Georgia Code § 24-7-702(c)

Tennessee Code § 29-26-115(b)

Tousignant v. St. Louis County, 615 N.W.2d 53, 59-60 (Minn. 2000)

32

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

POST-DEPOSITION

STRATEGIES

1. Additional Discovery

2. Motions in Limine

3. Errata Sheets

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1)

EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc., 618 F.3d 253, 266 (3d Cir. 2010)

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 277 F.R.D. 286, 296 (E.D. Va. 2011)

33

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

POST-DEPOSITION

STRATEGIES

1. Additional Discovery

2. Motions in Limine

3. Errata Sheets

Substantive Changes3 Views on What’s Permissible

Greenway v. Int’l Paper Co., 144 F.R.D. 322, 325 (W.D. La. 1992)

Wyeth v. Lupin Ltd., 252 F.R.D. 295, 296 (D. Md. 2008)

Podell v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., 112 F.3d 98, 103 (2d Cir. 1997)

3

2

1

34

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

POST-DEPOSITION

STRATEGIES

1. Additional Discovery

2. Motions in Limine

3. Errata Sheets

Substantive ChangesWhat Can You Do Now?

Podell v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., 112 F.3d 98, 103 (2d Cir. 1997)

Tingley Sys., Inc. v. CSC Consulting, Inc., 152 F.Supp.2d 95, 121 (D. Mass. 2001)

35

THANK YOU

Joel E. Smith

© Kosieradzki . Smith Law Firm, LLC 2019

Joel@KosLawFirm.com

36