| name | expert-witness-report-analysis |
| title | Expert Witness Report Analysis |
| description | Critiques opposing expert witness reports for admissibility challenges, disclosure deficiencies, and cross-examination vulnerabilities. Triggers when the user provides an expert report for analysis, needs Daubert/Frye assessment, requests a motion to exclude or limit expert testimony, or prepares deposition or trial cross-examination of an opposing expert. |
| author | CaseMark |
| author_url | https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/expert-witness-report-analysis |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | us |
| practice | litigation |
| language | en |
| tags | ["analysis","memo"] |
Expert Witness Report Analysis
Produces a litigation-ready memorandum assessing an opposing expert's report for admissibility, methodology flaws, and impeachment opportunities under Daubert or Frye.
Prerequisites
Collect before starting:
- Expert report — full text with all opinions and basis statements
- Expert CV — credentials, publications, prior testimony history
- Underlying data/exhibits — materials the expert relied upon
- Case file materials — pleadings, discovery, relevant fact record
- Jurisdiction — federal (Daubert) vs. state (Frye or hybrid)
- Deposition transcripts (if available) — for prior inconsistent statements
Workflow
Step 1: Extract and Catalog Opinions
Number each opinion verbatim with report page citations. For each, record the factual predicates claimed, methodological steps, and expressed certainty level.
Step 2: Assess Qualifications
Extract credentials against this checklist:
- Degrees, licenses, board certifications (verify currency)
- Publications and peer-reviewed work
- Prior testimony history — frequency, plaintiff vs. defendant ratio
- Litigation income percentage vs. professional practice
- Prior exclusions, judicial criticism, sanctions, retractions
Map each opinion to the expertise it requires. Flag gaps under FRE 702.
Step 3: Check FRCP 26(a)(2) Disclosure Completeness
Flag any missing or incomplete required elements:
- Complete statement of all opinions
- Basis and reasons for each opinion
- Facts or data considered
- Exhibits to be used
- Qualifications (CV)
- Cases with testimony in past 4 years
- Compensation statement
Missing elements are independent grounds for exclusion under FRCP 37(c)(1).
Step 4: Analyze Methodology
Trace each analytical chain: raw data → intermediate steps → final opinion.
Assess per step: claimed method, standard practice, departures, and justification.
Red flags:
- Litigation-only method not used in regular practice
- Cherry-picked data or ignored contradicting information
- Unsupported assumptions or no independent testing
- Failure to test alternative hypotheses
- Backward reasoning from conclusion to data
- Internal inconsistencies between report sections
