expert-witness-deposition

name	expert-witness-deposition
title	Expert Witness Deposition
description	Drafts litigation-ready expert witness deposition workflows for U.S. federal and state matters, covering preparation, examination, and defense strategy. Use when handling expert depositions, Daubert or Frye admissibility issues, Rule 26(a)(2) or 26(b)(4) disclosures, qualification and methodology challenges, bias and compensation probing, prior testimony impeachment, or work-product objections.
author	CaseMark
author_url	https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/expert-witness-deposition
license	Apache-2.0
version	0.1.0
execution_mode	open
jurisdiction	us
practice	litigation
language	en

Expert Witness Deposition

Produces a structured playbook to take, defend, or preserve a record for expert depositions under Daubert/Frye admissibility standards.

Quick Start

1. Confirm governing standard: federal Daubert vs Frye/state variant [VERIFY jurisdiction].
2. Set objective: exclude, limit, impeach, or defend the expert.
3. Collect: Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure package, CV, report, materials list, prior testimony/publications.
4. Choose mode:

Mode	Goal	Deliverable
Taking	Challenge qualifications, methodology, basis, opinions	Deposition outline + question set + record log
Defending	Prepare expert to withstand Daubert attacks	Mock-exam plan + response models + objection protocol
Mixed	Both attack and defense in one run	Two-side workbook: attack issues mapped to defense counters

Intake Checklist

Gather before drafting:

• Case caption, judge, jurisdiction, deposition type
• Expert report and addenda
• Rule 26(a)(2)(B) details: opinions, bases, data, exhibits, compensation [VERIFY]
• Expert CV and publication list
• Prior testimony transcripts
• Exhibits (written and electronic)
• Pending Daubert/exclusion motions
• Discovery rulings affecting scope

Taking: Questioning Framework

Use this fixed order: Qualifications → Engagement/compensation → Materials reviewed → Methodology → Each opinion → Application to facts → Prior positions.

For each topic, force narrow answers first, then expand with one follow-up.

Topic	Key asks	Daubert/Frye value
Qualifications	scope, recency, hands-on experience	Limits admissible field
Engagement/compensation	retention chain, total fees, repeat retainers	Bias/credibility
Materials reviewed	who provided, what omitted, assumptions	Foundation strength
Methodology	testing, standards, peer review, error rate