Tenth Circuit· 1/27/1984

Durflinger v. Artiles

Citations

727 F.2d 888
14 Fed. R. Serv. 1874

How courts have described this case

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

assuming expert as to whom designation is withdrawn should be treated as stated in Rule 26(b)(4)(B)
litigants not entitled to their own instruction 'when it contains substantially same information as district court’s instruction
party should not have access to opposing party’s diligent trial preparation, including experts consulted but not expected to be called at trial
“The rule is designed to promote fairness by precluding unreasonable access to an opposing party’s diligent trial preparation.” (emphasis added)
party’s own experts would testify to the same psychological principles and procedures as the opposing party’s expert, and therefore the party did not have a need to call the opposing expert, as his testimony would have been cumulative
Rule 26(b)(4)(B) prohibits a party from capitalizing on his opponent’s diligent discovery efforts by calling as a witness any expert retained by the opposing party in anticipation of litigation whom that opposing party has decided not to call at trial.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Doyle

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

80 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

76 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.