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