This Note examines the varying interpretations of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an issue currently dividing the nation's circuit courts of appeal and district courts. Interpreting the Rule for its plain meaning yields an exemption for expert witnesses who are either treating physicians or employees of a party in the case. While some courts have followed this textualist approach, more have opted for a broader interpretation, imposing the expert report requirements of Rule 26 on employee experts and treating physicians under certain circumstances. In keeping with the spirit of the Rules, courts should interpret the Rule broadly so as to encourage full disclosure while the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure considers potential amendments.

Included in

Law Commons