EXPERT DEPOSITION OUTLINE

Deposing the Opposing Party's Expert Witness

---

DEPOSITION INFORMATION

Case Caption: [________________________________] v. [________________________________]

Case Number: [________________________________]

Court: [________________________________]

Deponent (Expert Witness):
Name: [________________________________]
Title/Credentials: [________________________________]

Deposing Attorney:
Name: [________________________________]
Representing: ☐ Plaintiff / ☐ Defendant [________________________________]

Deposition Date: [__/__/____]

Deposition Location: [________________________________]

Court Reporter: [________________________________]

Videographer: [________________________________]

---

PRE-DEPOSITION PREPARATION CHECKLIST

Documents to Review Before Deposition

☐ Expert's written report and all appendices
☐ Expert's curriculum vitae
☐ Expert's list of publications (past 10 years)
☐ Expert's list of prior testimony (past 4 years)
☐ Expert's fee agreement and billing records
☐ All documents considered by the expert (per FRCP 26(a)(2)(B))
☐ Depositions from expert's prior cases
☐ Expert's prior publications and articles
☐ Opposing party's expert disclosure
☐ Own expert's analysis and critiques
☐ Relevant treatises and authoritative texts
☐ Industry standards and guidelines
☐ Technical literature in the subject area

Consultation with Your Expert

☐ Review opposing expert's report with your expert
☐ Identify weaknesses in opposing expert's methodology
☐ Identify gaps in opposing expert's analysis
☐ Identify inconsistencies with established principles
☐ Prepare technical questions with your expert's guidance
☐ Review authoritative literature that contradicts opinions

Strategic Objectives

☐ Lock in expert's opinions (prevent expansion at trial)
☐ Establish limitations of expert's opinions
☐ Identify factual gaps and unsupported assumptions
☐ Expose methodological weaknesses (for Daubert/Frye motion)
☐ Establish bias or financial interest
☐ Undermine credibility
☐ Obtain admissions favorable to your case
☐ Create impeachment material for trial

---

DEPOSITION OUTLINE

PART I: PRELIMINARY MATTERS AND GROUND RULES

A. Opening Instructions

1. Good [morning/afternoon]. My name is [________________________________], and I represent [________________________________] in this case.

2. Have you ever had your deposition taken before?
   - If yes: How many times?
   - In what types of cases?

3. [Standard deposition instructions - explain that:]
   - Questions must be answered verbally (no head nods)
   - Wait until question is complete before answering
   - "I don't know" and "I don't recall" are acceptable if true
   - If you don't understand, ask for clarification
   - All answers are under oath

4. Are you taking any medication that would affect your ability to testify?

5. Is there any reason you cannot give truthful testimony today?

---

PART II: EXPERT BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS

A. Educational Background

6. Please describe your educational background.

7. What degrees do you hold?
   - Institution?
   - Year conferred?
   - Field of study?
   - Thesis/dissertation topic?

8. Did you receive any specialized training in [relevant subject]?
   - When?
   - From whom?
   - Duration?
   - Certification received?

9. Are there any degrees or certifications in [relevant field] that you do not hold?

B. Professional Licenses and Certifications

10. What professional licenses do you currently hold?
    - Issuing authority?
    - Date issued?
    - Any disciplinary actions?
    - Any lapses or suspensions?

11. What professional certifications do you hold?
    - Requirements for certification?
    - Continuing education requirements?

12. Have any licenses or certifications ever been revoked, suspended, or subject to disciplinary action?

C. Professional Experience

13. Please describe your current employment.
    - Job title?
    - Responsibilities?
    - How long in this position?

14. What positions have you held in the past [10/15/20] years?

15. What percentage of your professional time is devoted to:
    - Clinical/practical work?
    - Research?
    - Teaching?
    - Expert witness work?
    - Other?

16. How has your work experience prepared you to render opinions in this case?

D. Teaching and Academic Positions

17. Have you held any teaching positions?
    - Where?
    - What subjects?
    - What level (undergraduate, graduate, professional)?

18. Have you taught courses specifically related to [subject of testimony]?

E. Publications

19. You listed [number] publications in your CV. Is that list complete for the past 10 years?

20. Have you published any articles or papers specifically on [topic of case]?

21. [For specific publications:] What was the peer review process for this publication?

22. Have any of your publications been cited in [authoritative text in the field]?

23. Have any of your publications been criticized or rebutted?

F. Professional Memberships

24. What professional organizations do you belong to?

25. Have you held any leadership positions?

26. Have you ever been denied membership or had membership revoked?

---

PART III: EXPERT WITNESS HISTORY

A. Prior Testimony Experience

27. How many times have you testified as an expert witness?
    - At trial?
    - At deposition?

28. You listed [number] cases in your disclosure. Is that list complete for the past 4 years?

29. For how many different law firms have you provided expert services?

30. What percentage of your work is for plaintiffs vs. defendants?
    - In the past year?
    - In your career?

31. Have you ever testified for the opposing party or their law firm?

32. Have any of your opinions ever been excluded by a court?
    - On what grounds?
    - [If yes:] Please describe the circumstances.

33. Have any courts criticized your methodology or opinions?

34. Have you ever withdrawn from a case after being retained?
    - Why?

B. Financial Interest

35. What is your hourly rate for this engagement?
    - File review?
    - Deposition testimony?
    - Trial testimony?

36. How much have you billed in this case to date?

37. What is your total expected compensation in this case?

38. How much expert witness income did you earn last year?

39. What percentage of your total income comes from expert witness work?

40. Is your compensation in any way contingent on the outcome of this case?

---

PART IV: RETENTION AND ASSIGNMENT

A. Engagement Details

41. When were you first contacted about this case?
    - By whom?
    - How (phone, email, referral)?

42. When were you formally retained?

43. What were you asked to do?

44. Who defined the scope of your assignment?

45. Were you provided with a specific question or hypothesis to evaluate?

46. Did anyone suggest or direct you toward a particular conclusion?

B. Work Performed

47. How many hours have you spent on this case?
    - File review?
    - Research?
    - Report preparation?
    - Meetings with counsel?
    - Other?

48. Did anyone assist you in preparing your report?
    - Who?
    - What did they do?

49. Did you use any computer programs or software in your analysis?

---

PART V: MATERIALS CONSIDERED

A. Documents Reviewed

50. Your report lists the documents you considered. Is that list complete?

51. [Hand expert their materials list] Did you receive any additional documents after preparing your report?

52. Are there any documents you requested but did not receive?

53. Are there documents you would have liked to review but did not have access to?

54. Did you review the deposition transcripts of:
    - [Party]?
    - [Witness]?
    - [Other expert]?

B. Communications

55. How many times have you met or spoken with counsel?
    - In person?
    - By telephone?
    - By video conference?

56. Did you take notes of those conversations?
    - [If yes:] May I see them?
    - [If no:] Why not?

57. [Note: Under FRCP 26(b)(4)(C), communications between counsel and testifying expert are generally protected unless they relate to: (1) compensation; (2) facts/data provided by counsel that the expert considered; (3) assumptions provided by counsel that the expert relied upon]

58. What facts or data were provided to you by counsel?

59. What assumptions, if any, were you asked to make?

C. Independent Investigation

60. Did you conduct any independent investigation?

61. Did you visit any sites or locations?

62. Did you conduct any testing or experiments?

63. Did you interview any witnesses or parties?

---

PART VI: OPINIONS AND METHODOLOGY

A. Statement of Opinions

64. Please state each opinion you intend to offer in this case.

65. [For each opinion:]
    - What is the basis for this opinion?
    - What facts or data support this opinion?
    - What methodology did you use?
    - To what degree of certainty do you hold this opinion?

66. Are there any opinions you hold that are not in your written report?

67. Have your opinions changed since you wrote your report?

68. Do you anticipate forming any additional opinions?

B. Methodology

69. Please describe the methodology you used in reaching your opinions.

70. Is this methodology generally accepted in your field?
    - By whom?
    - How do you know?

71. Where is this methodology described in the literature?

72. Has this methodology been tested?
    - By whom?
    - With what results?

73. What is the known error rate for this methodology?

74. Are there standards or protocols governing this methodology?
    - Did you follow them?
    - [If deviation:] Why did you deviate?

75. Have you used this methodology in other cases?

76. Would other experts in your field use the same methodology?

77. Are there alternative methodologies that could have been used?
    - Why didn't you use them?

C. Data and Assumptions

78. What data did you rely on in forming your opinions?

79. Is the data you relied on the type reasonably relied upon by experts in your field?

80. What assumptions did you make in your analysis?

81. [For each assumption:] What is the basis for that assumption?

82. If [assumption] were not true, would that change your opinion?

83. Did you verify the accuracy of the data provided to you?

84. Did you identify any gaps or deficiencies in the data?

---

PART VII: CHALLENGING THE OPINIONS

A. Factual Foundation

85. [Identify missing or disputed facts:] Were you aware that [fact]?

86. If [fact] were true, would that change your opinion?

87. You assumed [X]. But if [Y] were true instead, would that affect your analysis?

88. Did you consider [alternative fact/scenario]?

89. Your opinion relies on [document/data]. Did you verify its accuracy?

B. Methodological Weaknesses

90. [Referring to authoritative text:] Are you familiar with [text/author]?

91. [If yes:] Would you consider [text/author] to be authoritative?

92. [Reading from text:] This passage states [contrary position]. Do you agree or disagree?

93. Your methodology differs from [standard approach]. Can you explain why?

94. Did you consider using [alternative methodology]?
    - Why or why not?

95. If you had used [alternative methodology], might you have reached a different conclusion?

96. Are there any limitations to your methodology that you have not discussed?

C. Alternative Explanations

97. Are there alternative explanations for [the condition/result/event]?

98. Did you consider [alternative cause/explanation]?

99. Why did you rule out [alternative explanation]?

100. Is it possible that [alternative explanation] is correct?

D. Scope and Limitations

101. What are the limitations of your opinions?

102. Are there questions you were not asked to address?

103. Are there opinions you are not qualified to give?

104. Does your opinion depend on facts being determined by the jury?

---

PART VIII: BIAS AND CREDIBILITY

A. Relationship to Parties/Counsel

105. Have you worked with [opposing counsel/firm] before?
     - How many times?
     - Referred by them?

106. What percentage of your expert work comes from [firm/counsel]?

107. Do you have any personal relationship with any party?

108. Do you have any financial interest in the outcome?

B. Pattern of Testimony

109. How often do you testify for [plaintiffs/defendants]?

110. Have you ever reached a conclusion unfavorable to the party retaining you?
     - What happened?

111. Have you ever declined a retention because you could not support the desired position?

C. Consistency

112. Have you ever expressed a contrary opinion on this subject?
     - In testimony?
     - In publications?
     - In other contexts?

113. [If prior contrary statement:] How do you reconcile that statement with your current opinion?

---

PART IX: REPORT PREPARATION

A. Drafts and Changes

114. How many drafts of your report did you prepare?

115. Did anyone suggest changes to your report?
     - Who?
     - What changes?

116. Did you make those changes?

117. Do any draft reports still exist?

B. Exhibits and Demonstratives

118. What exhibits do you intend to use at trial?

119. Who prepared these exhibits?

120. Will you use any demonstrative aids at trial?

---

PART X: OPPOSING EXPERT OPINIONS

121. Have you reviewed [opposing expert]'s report?

122. Do you have any opinions regarding [opposing expert]'s methodology?

123. Do you disagree with any of [opposing expert]'s conclusions?
     - Which ones?
     - On what basis?

124. Is [opposing expert]'s methodology generally accepted?

---

PART XI: CLEANUP AND RESERVATION

A. Final Questions

125. Is there anything you want to add or clarify?

126. Is there anything in your report that you would change today?

127. Have you stated all of your opinions, or do you reserve the right to offer additional opinions?

128. Is there any document you wish you had reviewed but did not?

129. Are there any tests or analyses you wish you had performed?

B. Reservations

130. [Movant may reserve remaining time for follow-up questions]

End of Deposition Questions

---

POST-DEPOSITION ACTION ITEMS

☐ Review transcript for errors
☐ Prepare errata sheet responses (if expert makes corrections)
☐ Identify admissions and impeachment material
☐ Evaluate grounds for Daubert/Frye motion
☐ Share transcript with your expert for analysis
☐ Prepare deposition summary
☐ Update case strategy based on testimony
☐ Identify follow-up discovery needs

---

DEPOSITION STRATEGY NOTES

Goals for This Deposition

1. [________________________________]
2. [________________________________]
3. [________________________________]

Key Weaknesses to Exploit

1. [________________________________]
2. [________________________________]
3. [________________________________]

Critical Admissions Needed

1. [________________________________]
2. [________________________________]
3. [________________________________]

Documents to Use as Exhibits

Exhibit	Description	Purpose
Dep. Ex. 1	[________________________________]	[________________________________]
Dep. Ex. 2	[________________________________]	[________________________________]
Dep. Ex. 3	[________________________________]	[________________________________]

---

IMPORTANT REMINDERS

DO:
☐ Listen carefully to answers - follow up on evasive responses
☐ Use expert's own words against them when possible
☐ Reference authoritative texts the expert must acknowledge
☐ Lock the expert into positions to prevent trial surprises
☐ Get concessions on limitations of opinions
☐ Box the expert in - identify what they did NOT consider
☐ Stop when you get a good answer - don't give chance to explain

DON'T:
☐ Argue with the expert
☐ Try to "win" the deposition
☐ Reveal your entire trial strategy
☐ Ask questions you don't know the answer to (on critical points)
☐ Let long, jargon-filled answers go unchallenged
☐ Forget the time limit (7 hours presumptive under FRCP 30)

---

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30
• Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702
• ABA - Four Strategies for Deposing Experts
• U.S. Legal Support - Preparing Expert for Deposition
• National Institute of Justice - Expert Deposition Guide

---

This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before use. Deposition strategies should be tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of each case.