Johanning v. New Jersey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because testifying experts reviewed documents when forming their opinions, the documents were “considered” and required to be disclosed even if the experts did not rely upon these materials in forming their opinions
• stating, under Rule 26(a)(2), “ ‘[c]onsidered,’ which simply means ‘to take into account,’ clearly invokes a broader spectrum of thought than the phrase ‘relied upon,’ which requires dependence on the information.”
• suggesting that oral communications may be discoverable
• “[U]seful cross examination and possible impeachment can only be accomplished by gaining access to all of the information that shaped or potentially influenced the expert witness’s opinion.”
• disclosure of documents containing attorney’s opinion work product to testifying expert witness waived work product privilege as to those documents; opposing party was entitled to production of documents
• collecting cases and summarizing their varying approaches

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).