Boyce v. American Liberty Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “when an expert alternately dons and doffs the 'privileged hat' of a litigation consultant and the ‘non-privilege hat’ hat of a testifying witness” the materials he uses to form his opinion testimony are discoverable
• holding that \when an expert alternately dons and doffs the `privileged hat' of a litigation consultant and the `non-privilege hat' hat of a testifying witness\ the materials he uses to form his opinion testimony are discoverable
• finding that the dual-hat expert’s proffered expert testimony, regarding statistical analysis of employee data performed in 2008, was not sufficiently related to the consultative analysis he conducted in 2003 and 2004 to require disclosure
• requiring the defendant in an employment discrimination action to disclose privileged human resources documents where it claimed that oversight by the legal department “constrained improper subjectivity” in personnel decisions
• applying an “objective test” that “defines ‘considered’ as anything received, reviewed, read, or authored by the expert, before or in connection with the forming of his opinion, if the subject matter relates to the facts or opinions expressed” (citation omitted) (emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).