• To Comply with Superior Court Rule 26(b)(4) Regarding Expert Disclosures, Party Does Not Need Formal Report But Does Need to Identify the Expert, His/Her Opinion, and Bases For Opinion so Opposing Party Has Adequate Notice of Expected Testimony.
  • April 27, 2017
  • Law Firm: Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman Goggin P.C. - Philadelphia Office
  • Winn v. Clements, No. N15C-01-124 VLM, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 95 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 2017)

    In August 2016, the plaintiff’s counsel e-mailed defense counsel a list of topics he expected the plaintiff’s medical expert to testify about at trial. The e-mail was sent before the plaintiff’s deadline to disclose “expert reports (or Rule 26(b)(4) disclosures)” under the applicable Scheduling Order. Three months after the deadline expired, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the e-mail alone was insufficient to meet the plaintiff’s prima facie burden of establishing causation and damages. The court disagreed, distinguished prior case law, and held that the e-mail disclosure was sufficient to satisfy Rule 26(b)(4). The defendant’s motion was denied.