United States v. Kulcsar

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• assuming expert as to whom designation is withdrawn should be treated as stated in Rule 26(b)(4)(B)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).