Expert Deposition Toolkit: Outline Frameworks, Reliance Material Requests, and Rule 26 Protection Maps

Summary. This toolkit collects the working documents for expert depositions in federal court, each introduced by its purpose, its owner, and when to use it, and followed by drafting commentary tied to the governing rules and cases. It starts with a Rule 26 protection map that sorts expert materials into protected and discoverable categories under the 2010 amendments, followed by model expert stipulation clauses, a Rule 34 reliance-material request, a Rule 45 subpoena rider, a notice and remote stipulation, and a fee agreement letter under Rule 26(b)(4)(E). The outline frameworks include a report audit chart, a master outline with a time budget, an opinion funnel worksheet organized by Rule 702 element, an assumptions and change-question chart, subject modules for patent royalty and software copyright experts, and an impeachment and learned-treatise script. For the defending side, it provides a preparation session agenda, model assumptions-section language, scripts for objections and instructions not to answer, and an errata and supplementation log. It closes with a post-deposition digest and a Daubert record map that turn the transcript into a motion, followed by answers to common questions, practical takeaways, and related resources.

The rebuttal damages report lands at 9:40 on a Friday night, the scheduling order closes expert depositions in 21 days, and the spreadsheet behind the royalty rate is nowhere in the production. Expert depositions reward the lawyer who arrives with the right paper: the subpoena rider that got the native files, the chart that shows which communications are discoverable, the outline that tracks the elements of the motion. This toolkit is that paper, and every template in it is meant to be copied, adapted to the case, and checked against local rules and the judge's practices.

The short answer

A handful of documents do most of the work. Before anyone writes a report, both sides need a protection map and an expert stipulation, because Rule 26(b)(4)(B) and (C) protect drafts and most attorney-expert communications but leave the expert's notes, working files, and conversations with everyone else open to discovery. The taking side should request the expert's file from the party early, serve a subpoena rider with the deposition notice, settle the fee in writing, and outline the deposition by Rule 702 element, opinion by opinion, because since December 1, 2023 the proponent must prove each element by a preponderance of the evidence. The defending side should write a real assumptions section into the report, teach the expert the three exceptions to the communications protection, object to form in two words, and instruct the witness not to answer only on the grounds Rule 30(c)(2) allows. After the deposition, both sides turn the transcript into a digest keyed to the motion that will follow, and route substantive corrections through supplementation rather than errata.

How to use this toolkit

Each template states its purpose, its owner (who on the team should prepare it), and when to use it, then gives the template and a short drafting commentary. Bracketed text in capitals is to be filled in. The doctrine is explained in Expert Depositions: Taking Apart the Opinion, Protecting Your Own Expert, and Building the Daubert Record; the sequence of tasks is in Taking and Defending an Expert Deposition: A Practical Guide and the Expert Deposition Preparation Checklist. For selecting and retaining experts before any of this begins, see the Expert Witness Toolkit.

Template 1: Rule 26 protection map

Purpose: a one-page map of which expert materials are protected and which are discoverable. Owner: the associate running expert discovery. When to use: before reports are drafted (defending side) and before writing requests and the outline (taking side).

Drafting commentary. The map reflects federal law after the 2010 amendments, which reversed the earlier majority rule that everything given to a testifying expert was discoverable, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville v. LFG, LLC, 460 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 2006). Add a column for any state forum in the case, because state rules may not follow the 2010 approach. Wright & Miller discuss the categories at 8A Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 2031.2 and 2032.

Template 2: Expert stipulation clauses

Purpose: agreed rules for expert discovery that reduce disputes and cost. Owner: the partner responsible for discovery, negotiated with opposing counsel. When to use: in the Rule 26(f) discovery plan or shortly after, and in any event before reports are drafted.

[PARTY NAMES] stipulate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 29, subject to the Court's approval:

1. Drafts. No party will seek drafts of any expert report, declaration, or disclosure, or notes prepared by or for a testifying expert in connection with drafting them, regardless of form.
2. Communications. No party will seek communications between a testifying expert and counsel for the party that retained the expert, except to the extent they concern compensation, identify facts or data counsel provided that the expert considered, or identify assumptions counsel provided that the expert relied on.
3. No logging. Materials protected under paragraphs 1 and 2 need not be listed on any privilege log.
4. Materials considered. Within [7] days after serving a report, the serving party will produce all facts, data, documents, models, code, and other materials the expert considered, in native format where they exist natively, except materials previously produced in discovery and identified by production number.
5. Compensation. Each report will state the expert's hourly rates and total billed to date; invoices will be produced no later than [7] days before the expert's deposition.
6. Depositions. Each expert may be deposed for up to [7] hours per report served, [not to exceed TOTAL] hours, absent agreement or order.
7. Fees. The deposing party will pay the expert's reasonable hourly rate for time spent testifying and up to [one hour of preparation per hour of testimony]; all other preparation time is borne by the retaining party.
8. Remote attendance. Any party may attend remotely; the witness will attend [in person / remotely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4)].
9. Clawback. Production of material described in paragraphs 1 and 2 does not waive any protection, and the producing party may recall it on written notice; the parties will jointly ask the Court to enter this paragraph as an order under Fed. R. Evid. 502(d).

Drafting commentary. Paragraphs 1 and 2 mirror the federal protections and extend them to notes, which the rule itself does not protect. Paragraph 3 avoids a log of every email between counsel and the expert. Paragraph 4 solves the problem the rules leave open: the report identifies what was considered but need not attach working files, Gillespie v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 386 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2004). Paragraph 7 settles in advance the preparation-time question on which courts split under Rule 26(b)(4)(E) (see Template 6). Paragraph 9 matters because expert files are produced in bulk and on short deadlines; an order under Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) keeps an inadvertently produced draft or counsel email from waiving protection in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding. If the other side refuses to stipulate, the refusal is itself useful when you later ask the court to set fees or order production.

Template 3: Reliance-material request under Rule 34

Purpose: a document request to the retaining party for the expert's file. Owner: the associate drafting written discovery. When to use: in the first set of requests, so the obligation exists before reports are served.

Definition. "EXPERT MATERIALS" means, for each person YOU identify under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A), all documents, data, electronically stored information, models, spreadsheets, code, test protocols, test results, photographs, notes of inspections or interviews, and other materials the person generated, reviewed, reflected upon, read, or used in connection with forming the opinions to be expressed, whether or not relied upon, excluding only materials protected by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B) or (C).

Request [NO.]. All EXPERT MATERIALS, produced in native format with formulas, metadata, and file structure intact.

Request [NO.]. All documents reflecting compensation for each expert's study or testimony, including engagement letters, invoices, and time entries.

Request [NO.]. All communications between each expert and any person other than YOUR attorneys concerning the subject matter of the expert's opinions, including communications with YOUR employees and with other experts.

Request [NO.]. All documents identifying facts, data, or assumptions provided by YOUR counsel to each expert that the expert considered or relied upon.

Request [NO.]. Transcripts of each expert's testimony, and reports served by each expert, in other matters concerning [SUBJECT MATTER] during the [six] years preceding the request.

Drafting commentary. The definition borrows the "generates, reviews, reflects upon, reads, and/or uses" formulation from Synthes Spine, which courts have carried forward after 2010 because the word "considered" did not change. The prior-reports request draws more objections than the others; courts have divided on whether prior reports are discoverable, so tie the request to the same subject matter and offer reciprocity. Serve the requests under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 early; a request served after the report arrives gives the other side 30 days to respond, which may be after the deposition.

Template 4: Subpoena rider for the expert's file

Purpose: a Schedule A attached to a document subpoena served with the deposition notice. Owner: the associate preparing the deposition. When to use: the day the report is served.

SCHEDULE A to Subpoena to [EXPERT NAME]

Instructions. Produce the following on or before [DATE, seven to ten days before the deposition] at [PLACE or electronic delivery]. Documents previously produced in this action may be identified by production number rather than reproduced. This Schedule does not request drafts of your report or your communications with counsel for [RETAINING PARTY], except to the extent such communications concern your compensation, identify facts or data counsel provided that you considered, or identify assumptions counsel provided that you relied upon.

1. Your current curriculum vitae and a complete list of your publications.
2. A list of all matters in which you have testified at trial or by deposition since [DATE], including matters outside the four years covered by your report.
3. Your engagement letter, invoices, and time records for this matter.
4. All materials you considered in forming your opinions, in native format, including models, spreadsheets, code, data sets, and test results.
5. All notes of any testing, inspection, interview, or site visit.
6. All communications with any person other than counsel for [RETAINING PARTY] concerning this matter.
7. All documents you brought to, or reviewed in preparation for, your deposition.

Drafting commentary. Serve the subpoena together with the notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4) requires notice and a copy of a document subpoena to every party before it is served on the witness, and Rule 30(b)(2) requires the deposition notice to list the subpoenaed materials or attach the list, so the Schedule does double duty. A stand-alone document subpoena to the other side's retained expert has been quashed as an end run around Rule 26(b)(4), Marsh v. Jackson, 141 F.R.D. 431 (W.D. Va. 1992), while a subpoena paired with the deposition was recognized as proper. The express carve-out for protected material in the instructions defuses the most common objection before it is made. Item 7 tracks Fed. R. Evid. 612 and the practical rule that what the witness brings into the room is fair game.

Template 5: Deposition notice and remote stipulation

Purpose: the notice for a retained expert's deposition, paired with a stipulation that makes a remote or hybrid deposition run cleanly. Owner: the associate preparing the deposition, working with the court reporting agency. When to use: serve the notice the day the report arrives, together with the Template 4 subpoena; circulate the remote stipulation at least a week before the deposition.

NOTICE OF VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF [EXPERT NAME]

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A) and 30(b)(1), [NOTICING PARTY] will take the deposition by oral examination of [EXPERT NAME], whom [RETAINING PARTY] has disclosed as an expert witness under Rule 26(a)(2), beginning at [TIME] on [DATE] at [ADDRESS / by remote means under the parties' stipulation]. The deposition will be taken before an officer authorized under Rule 28, recorded stenographically and by audiovisual means, and may use instant visual display of the testimony. It will continue from day to day until completed, subject to [Rule 30(d)(1) / the Court's order of DATE allowing HOURS hours]. The materials the witness is to produce are listed in Schedule A to the subpoena served with this notice, attached as Exhibit 1.

Remote deposition stipulation (paragraphs to adapt)

1. The deposition will be taken by [PLATFORM] under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4) and takes place where the witness answers the questions.
2. The court reporter may administer the oath remotely [to the extent permitted where the witness is located].
3. The witness will be alone in the room, with a camera showing the witness's face, hands, and work surface whenever the record is open, and will not use email, messaging, or any other communication while a question is pending or the record is open.
4. The witness will have before her only [a clean copy of her report and the exhibits introduced at the deposition]. Exhibits will be [delivered in a sealed package opened on the record / displayed through the platform's exhibit function, which logs what the witness sees].
5. Time lost to technical failure does not count against the time limit; if a connection fails for more than [15] minutes, counsel will confer about resuming or rescheduling.
6. The court reporter's recording is the only official record; no participant will record the deposition by other means.
7. Objections to the remote format are waived unless stated on the record before the examination begins.

Drafting commentary. A retained expert is not a party, but the retaining party ordinarily produces its expert on notice; if it will not commit to that in the expert stipulation (Template 2), serve a Rule 45 subpoena for attendance too. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(A) requires the notice to state the method of recording, and Rule 30(b)(4) permits remote depositions by stipulation or court order and treats the deposition as taken where the deponent answers. The officer requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 still apply, so ask the agency to confirm that its reporter may swear a witness sitting in another state or country. Paragraphs 3 and 4 do the real work. A remote expert reading from an annotated report or receiving messages is the remote version of the witness who brings notes into the room, and anything she consults to refresh her memory can be ordered produced under Fed. R. Evid. 612. For a foreign expert, add the logistics covered in the Cross-Border Discovery Toolkit before anyone books travel.

Template 6: Fee agreement letter

Purpose: a short letter that fixes what the deposing party will pay the other side's expert, so that the fee never becomes a reason to postpone. Owner: the lawyer who noticed the deposition; on the defending side, the lawyer who will forward the expert's invoice. When to use: with the notice or within a few days of it, and always before the deposition.

Re: [CASE CAPTION]; deposition of [EXPERT NAME]

Dear [COUNSEL]:

This confirms our agreement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E) on [EXPERT]'s fees for the deposition noticed for [DATE]:

1. Testimony. [DEPOSING PARTY] will pay [EXPERT]'s hourly rate of $[RATE], the same rate [EXPERT] charges [RETAINING PARTY], for time on the record, with a minimum of [two] hours.
2. Preparation. [DEPOSING PARTY] will pay for [EXPERT]'s own review of materials in preparation, up to [one hour per hour of testimony / NUMBER hours]. Time spent meeting with, or preparing, counsel for [RETAINING PARTY] is not included.
3. Travel. [Travel time at one half of the hourly rate, plus reasonable airfare, lodging, and ground transport / Not applicable; the witness will testify remotely.]
4. Transcript review. Time spent reading the transcript and preparing any errata sheet is borne by [RETAINING PARTY].
5. Cancellation. No charge if the deposition is cancelled or moved at least [five] business days in advance.
6. Invoicing. [EXPERT] will invoice [DEPOSING PARTY] within [30] days, itemized by date, task, and time; payment is due within [30] days of receipt.

If any of this differs from your understanding, please tell me by [DATE] so that any disagreement can go to the Court before the deposition rather than after it.

Drafting commentary. Unless manifest injustice would result, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E)(i) requires the party seeking discovery to pay the expert "a reasonable fee for time spent in responding," and nearly every dispute is about what "reasonable" and "responding" mean. (The older cases below applied the same words when they sat in Rule 26(b)(4)(C), before the 2010 renumbering.) On the rate, courts weigh the expert's field, the training the work requires, prevailing rates for comparable experts, the complexity of the discovery, the fee the expert charges the retaining party, and the expert's fees in related matters; applying those factors, Jochims v. Isuzu Motors, Ltd., 141 F.R.D. 493 (S.D. Iowa 1992) cut a requested $500 hourly deposition rate to $250. Courts dislike a premium charged only to the adversary: Anthony v. Abbott Laboratories, 106 F.R.D. 461 (D.R.I. 1985) called a $420 rate unconscionable when the expert had charged a friendly litigant $250, and Edin v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co., 188 F.R.D. 543 (D. Ariz. 1999) found $1,400 for a two-hour physician deposition grossly unreasonable and set $450 an hour. That is why paragraph 1 ties the rate to what the expert charges the side that hired her.

Preparation time is where courts genuinely split. Rhee v. Witco Chemical Corp., 126 F.R.D. 45 (N.D. Ill. 1989) treated an expert's preparation as the retaining party's trial preparation and refused to shift it, absent unusual circumstances; S.A. Healy Co. v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, 154 F.R.D. 212 (E.D. Wis. 1994) found those circumstances in a complex damages case deposed months after the report and allowed five hours; and Magee v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co., 172 F.R.D. 627 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) held preparation compensable but not time the expert spent preparing the lawyer who retained him. Paragraph 2 draws exactly that line. Wright & Miller collect the fee cases at 8A Federal Practice and Procedure § 2034. Keep this fee separate from costs at the end of the case: expert charges beyond the witness allowance of 28 U.S.C. § 1821 are generally not taxable, Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (1987), unless a statute or contract shifts them; see the Fee Shifting and Litigation Cost Recovery Toolkit.

Template 7: Report audit chart and deficiency letter

Purpose: a same-day audit of the opposing report against the six required elements, and a letter that demands what is missing. Owner: the associate assigned to the expert, reviewed by the partner who will take the deposition. When to use: within two or three days after the report is served, before the subpoena return date.

Re: [CASE]; Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report of [EXPERT]

We have reviewed the report served on [DATE]. It does not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) in these respects: [1. The list of facts or data considered refers to "documents produced in this litigation" without identifying them. 2. The testimony list omits the court and case number for NUMBER matters. 3. The report applies a 40 percent "technical contribution" factor on page 61 without stating its basis or the reasons for it.] Please serve a corrected report and the identified materials by [DATE, at least ten days before the deposition]. Absent that, we will hold the deposition open on these subjects, seek the costs of any continued session, and reserve our right to move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). We are available to confer on [DATES].

Drafting commentary. The report must be complete enough that the other side need not depose the expert to learn what she will say, Salgado v. General Motors Corp., 150 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 1998), and the deposition does not fix a deficient one: Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2008) held that Rule 26(a)(2) does not let a party cure a deficient report with later deposition testimony, and that the deficiency was not harmless because it forced the opponent to depose the expert with little understanding of what he would say. Exclusion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) is described in the Seventh Circuit as automatic and mandatory unless the failure was justified or harmless, and harmlessness turns on prejudice or surprise, the ability to cure it, the likelihood of disrupting trial, and bad faith or willfulness, David v. Caterpillar, Inc., 324 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2003). The "ability to cure" factor drives the strategy. List-type omissions (materials, testimony list, exhibits, signature) should go in the letter now, because a court asked later to exclude will want to know why you waited. An opinion stated without its reasons is a judgment call: flagging it may produce a supplemental report that repairs the gap, while silence may let the other side argue that you could have cured the surprise and chose not to. Many lawyers raise it in one neutral sentence, as in item 3, and keep the detailed critique for the deposition and the motion. Never use the letter to preview substantive weaknesses that are not disclosure defects.

Template 8: Master outline with time budget

Purpose: the skeleton of the taking lawyer's outline, built as modules that can be reordered or dropped without losing the record. Owner: the partner taking the deposition, with an associate maintaining the exhibit list and the clock log. When to use: start the week the report arrives; finish it before the last preparation session with your own expert.

MODULE [NO.]: [TITLE] (target [MINUTES]; running total [H:MM])

• Goal: [the one admission this module must produce, in the words you want to quote]
• Exhibits: [report pp. ; model tab ""; invoice; article]
• Open: "[Walk me through how you...]"
• Narrow: [three to six follow-ups that track the report's own steps]
• Lock: "[So the only basis for X is A and B? Is there anything else?]"
• If the witness will not commit: [document to hand her; fallback question]
• Rule 702 element served: (a) / (b) / (c) / (d)

A default sequence for a seven-hour day: preliminaries (10 minutes); assignment and money (25); materials and assumptions (50); the opinions list (15); one funnel per opinion (3 hours 45 minutes in all); publications and prior testimony (35); the closing lock (20); and a 40-minute reserve that you protect from the first question.

Opening module (preliminaries).

1. "Did you bring anything with you today? May I see it?"
2. "What did you review to prepare for today? Did any of it refresh your memory about your work?"
3. "How many times did you meet with counsel to prepare, for how long, and who attended?" (Ask about the fact of meetings, not their content.)
4. "Since signing your report, have you done any additional work, formed any new opinion, or changed any opinion?"
5. "Is there anything in your report that you want to correct today?"

Closing module (the lock).

1. "Have you now told me every opinion you intend to offer at trial in this case?"
2. "For each one, have you told me everything you relied on?"
3. "Do you plan to do any further work? If you do, will you let counsel know so that we can be told?"
4. "Is there any answer you have given today that you want to change?"

Clock log. Keep a running log with four columns: clock time, event, minutes on the record, and a note for every nonresponsive answer, break, technical failure, or document produced late.

Drafting commentary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1) presumptively limits the deposition to one day of seven hours but requires the court to allow more time if needed to examine the witness fairly or if the deponent or anyone else impedes the examination, and the Advisory Committee's note to the 2000 amendment recognizes that expert witnesses may more often need additional time, even after a report, to explore the theories they rely on. The clock log is your evidence when you ask. Because Rule 30(c)(1) runs the examination as it would run at trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence (except Rules 103 and 615), the preparation questions in the opening module are proper, and notes a witness consults while testifying can be ordered produced; Magee v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co., 172 F.R.D. 627 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) did exactly that for notes a witness repeatedly consulted at his deposition. Say "move to strike as nonresponsive" when you mean it: under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B), an objection to the form of an answer that could have been corrected at the deposition is waived if not made there. General outlining technique is in the Deposition Practice Toolkit and the Preparing to Take a Deposition Checklist.

Template 9: Opinion funnel worksheet by Rule 702 element

Purpose: one page per opinion that converts the report into the four questions the judge will decide. Owner: the associate who ran the report audit drafts it; the partner and your own expert mark it up. When to use: the week before the deposition, one sheet for each opinion.

Opinion [NO.]: "[the opinion, quoted from the report]" (Report p. __)

Drafting commentary. As amended December 1, 2023, Fed. R. Evid. 702 requires the proponent to show that it is more likely than not that each element is met, the standard Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) always imposed, and the Advisory Committee's note rejects decisions that treated sufficiency of basis and application as questions of weight. Each row is a citation waiting to happen: the reliability considerations of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) for row (c); the "analytical gap" of General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) for row (d); the intellectual-rigor test of Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) for experience-based experts; and the rule of In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) that any step that renders the analysis unreliable renders the testimony inadmissible. The alternatives row comes from the Advisory Committee's note to the 2000 amendment, which asks whether the expert developed the opinion for litigation, extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion, accounted for obvious alternative explanations, and was as careful as in regular professional work. An untested hypothesis is not knowledge, Nease v. Ford Motor Co., 848 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2017). Write the "admission wanted" column before the deposition, in the words you would quote in the brief; if you cannot write the sentence, you are not ready to ask for it.

Template 10: Assumptions and change-question chart

Purpose: a register of every assumption behind each opinion, paired with the question that shows whether it carries weight. Owner: on the taking side, the associate preparing the outline; on the defending side, the lawyer who drafts the report's assumptions section (Template 15). When to use: the week before the deposition, and for the defending side, before the report is served.

Drafting commentary. Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(iii) opens counsel's communications only for assumptions the expert relied on, but assumptions supplied by the client or by another expert are discoverable without that limit, so the chart tracks all three sources. The change question pays either way: a yes makes the assumption load-bearing at trial, and a no suggests the opinion was never built on its stated premise. Opinions resting on assumptions without record support should not reach the jury: the Third Circuit said so of an economist's lost-earnings model in Elcock v. Kmart Corp., 233 F.3d 734 (3d Cir. 2000), and the Second Circuit of an earnings projection contradicted by the evidence in Boucher v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 73 F.3d 18 (2d Cir. 1996). An expert who adopts a party's internal projections without analysis is passing along hopes rather than results, Zenith Electronics Corp. v. WH-TV Broadcasting Corp., 395 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2005). Build every hypothetical from documents or testimony already in the record, because a hypothetical premised on facts the jury will never hear is objectionable at trial.

Template 11: Patent royalty expert module

Purpose: a question module for a reasonable-royalty expert, sequenced to the Federal Circuit's apportionment and comparability cases. Owner: the partner taking the deposition, with your own damages expert reviewing each question. When to use: with Template 9, after you have the expert's model in native form. The specific facts come from the worked example in the companion article, Kestrel Networks v. Brightwave Semiconductor, in which Kestrel's damages expert opines that a royalty of 1.2 percent of chipset revenue is reasonable; substitute your own.

A. Framework. (1) "What date did you use for the hypothetical negotiation, and who gave it to you?" (2) "You assumed the asserted claims are valid and infringed?" (3) "What did you assume each party knew at the table?"

B. Royalty base. (4) "What is the base, and why that unit rather than a smaller one?" (5) "Which features of the chipset do not practice the claims?" (6) "What evidence shows that the patented feature drives demand for the whole product?"

C. Licenses. For each license: (7) "Which patents and products did it cover? Was it a litigation settlement? Lump sum or running royalty? How many units did the licensee expect to sell?" (8) "How did you convert the lump sum into a per-unit rate? List every fact you relied on for the conversion. Anything else?" (9) "How did you account for the other 39 patents in the portfolio license?"

D. Rate. (10) "Which Georgia-Pacific factor moved the rate, in which direction, and by how much?" (11) "Where does the 40 percent technical-contribution figure come from? Could you have derived it yourself?" (12) "Did any rule of thumb or presumed bargaining split enter the analysis?" (13) "How did you separate the value of the technique from the value of its inclusion in the standard?"

E. Alternatives. (14) "What non-infringing alternatives did you consider, and what would switching to them have cost Brightwave?"

F. Lock. (15) "Other than the three licenses, the 40 percent factor, and the sales data, did you rely on anything for the 1.2 percent rate?"

Drafting commentary. Damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 may be no less than a reasonable royalty, usually modeled as the hypothetical negotiation of Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), and must be apportioned to the patented feature. Questions 4 to 6 track the entire-market-value cases, LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., 904 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Questions 7 to 9 track comparability: lump sums cannot become per-unit rates without unit information, WordTech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc., 609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010); an opinion that lump-sum licenses reflect a per-unit rate, resting on the licenses' recitals, lacks sufficient facts under Rule 702(b), EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, 137 F.4th 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (en banc); and a flat rate charged regardless of which patents a license covered shows no built-in apportionment, Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp., 13 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Questions 10 to 13 track the requirement that the expert show the steps from factors to number, Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Exmark Manufacturing Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC, 879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018); the bar on serving as another expert's mouthpiece, Dura Automotive Systems of Indiana, Inc. v. CTS Corp., 285 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2002); the rejection of rules of thumb and presumed splits, Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and the standard-essential patent rule of Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014). On the defending side, Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015) supports a model that starts from real negotiations rather than the smallest salable unit, provided the expert can explain what those negotiations valued. The modeling side is in the Patent Damages Toolkit; the same questions adapt to royalty and unjust-enrichment experts in trade secret cases, covered in Proving or Defending Against Trade Secret Damages.

Template 12: Software copyright expert module

Purpose: questions for a software engineer expert on copying and filtration, and the defending side's preparation points for the same witness. Owner: on the taking side, the lawyer who handled source code discovery; on the defending side, the lawyer who retained the expert. When to use: after the source code review logs and the expert's tool outputs have been produced.

Taking side: questions

1. "Which versions of each codebase did you review? Identify them by release or commit."
2. "Where did you review them, and where are the notes you took at the review computer?"
3. "Which comparison tools did you run, with what settings? Given your inputs and settings, would another engineer get the same output?"
4. "Which modules did you compare? Who chose them, and why those?"
5. "What levels of abstraction did you identify, and where does that framework come from?"
6. "For each element you filtered out: which category (efficiency, external constraints, public domain or open source, merger, scènes à faire), and what source supports the call?"
7. "After filtration, what protectable expression remains, and how much of it appears in the accused product?"
8. "Are you offering any opinion on whether an ordinary observer would find the products substantially similar? On access?"
9. "Whom did you interview at the company, when, with or without counsel present, and what did you learn?"

Defending side: preparation points. Tie each filtration category to published criteria. Preserve every tool output, log, and review note. List developer interviews as facts considered. Prepare a plain scope answer for audience-level similarity. Confirm who selected the modules, because a selection made by counsel is facts or data provided by counsel and is discoverable.

Drafting commentary. Questions 5 to 7 follow the abstraction-filtration-comparison method of Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) and Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993), which apply the idea-expression line of 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). Question 8 marks a doctrinal boundary: Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946) confined expert dissection to the question of copying, Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977) allows experts on the extrinsic test but not the intrinsic one, and Dawson v. Hinshaw Music Inc., 905 F.2d 731 (4th Cir. 1990) measures similarity through the eyes of the intended audience when that audience is specialized. Question 3 is the reproducibility test that Elcock applied to a vocational expert whose subjective method no one else could repeat. When a damages expert relies on the engineer, add an apportionment question: under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), the infringer may prove the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work, and Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 U.S. 390 (1940) approved apportioning profits on that basis. The article's second worked example (Harbor Systems v. Lumen Analytics) walks through the defending side; filtration charts and report templates are in the Copyright Infringement Litigation Toolkit.

Template 13: Impeachment and learned-treatise script

Purpose: scripts for the impeachment moves that are cheap to set up at the deposition and expensive to improvise at trial. Owner: the partner taking the deposition. When to use: at the deposition, with every exhibit pre-marked.

A. Prior inconsistent publication. Commit: "You agree that [a regression with fewer than 30 observations is unreliable for this purpose]?" Credit: "You wrote [TITLE] in [JOURNAL] in [YEAR]? It was peer reviewed? You tried to be accurate?" Authenticate: "Is Exhibit [__] a true copy?" Confront: "Please read the second sentence on page 7. Did I read it correctly?" Explain (deposition only): "What changed between [YEAR] and this report?"

B. Prior testimony. "In [CASE], on [DATE], under oath, you testified: '[QUOTE].' Was that true when you said it?"

C. Learned treatise. "Are you familiar with [TREATISE, EDITION]? Do you consider it a reliable authority on [TOPIC]? Do you own it, cite it, or assign it to students? Is any part of it unreliable?" If the expert will not concede: "Which publication do you consider authoritative on [TOPIC]?"

D. Bias and money. "Your hourly rate? Hours billed here? Total to date? What share of last year's income came from litigation work? How many times has this firm retained you? This client? How often for plaintiffs, how often for defendants?"

E. The dodges. "Sitting here today, can you identify any document that would change that answer?" After a lecture: "Move to strike as nonresponsive. My question was: [repeat it verbatim]."

Drafting commentary. Commit before you confront; if you confront first, the explanation arrives first and becomes the record. Asking for the explanation is usually right at a deposition and wrong at trial, because you would rather hear it now. Fed. R. Evid. 613 does not require showing the witness the statement first, though extrinsic proof at trial requires a chance to explain or deny it, and authenticity under Fed. R. Evid. 901 is easiest to get from the author. Sworn deposition testimony that the expert later contradicts is not hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A). The treatise foundation under Fed. R. Evid. 803(18) can come from the expert's own admission; the passage is then read to the jury rather than received as an exhibit, and it need not be on paper, Costantino v. Herzog, 203 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2000) (videotape). Bias discovery has limits: Behler v. Hanlon, 199 F.R.D. 553 (D. Md. 2001) allowed the share of income from expert work and the pattern of retention but not tax returns. The trial versions of these scripts are in the Deposition Use Toolkit.

Template 14: Defending preparation agenda

Purpose: a three-session plan for preparing your own expert, with the limits that keep preparation from creating discoverable trouble. Owner: the lawyer who will defend the deposition. When to use: begin about two weeks before the deposition.

Session 1, about two weeks out (half day): structure and the file. Walk through the protection map (Template 1) and the three exceptions. Reconcile the materials-considered list with what was produced. Read the invoices and time entries the way the other side will. Test each assumption against the record (Template 10). List everyone the expert spoke with about the case.

Session 2, about one week out (full day): the report as script, then mock cross. For each opinion: the page, a one-sentence statement, the method in three sentences, the best support. Then a colleague who has never met the expert cross-examines for as long as the deposition will run, starting with the weakest opinion: hypotheticals with swapped facts, change questions, prior publications, and "list everything you relied on." Play back a few minutes of video.

Session 3, the day before (one to two hours): logistics. Remote setup, exhibit procedure, breaks, this court's rule on conferring during breaks, and the instruction to bring nothing.

Do not: put privileged material in the preparation binder; hand the expert new facts or assumptions without accepting that they become discoverable; script answers; let a consulting expert sit in; or let the expert run a new analysis the night before.

Drafting commentary. Expect questions about how many sessions there were, how long they lasted, who attended, and what the expert reviewed; the content of counsel's communications stays protected except for the three exceptions, and documents used to refresh recollection can be ordered produced under Rule 612. A consulting expert in the room is a double problem: the testifier's conversations with another expert are not attorney communications, Republic of Ecuador v. Bjorkman, 735 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2013), and blending the consultant's work into the testimony invites the waiver found in Yeda Research & Development Co. v. Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, 292 F.R.D. 97 (D.D.C. 2013). ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(b) forbids assisting a witness to testify falsely; preparation should improve how the expert explains her opinions, never what they are. Whether break-time conferences can be explored depends on the court, and Hall v. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 525 (E.D. Pa. 1993) marks the restrictive end. A new analysis the night before is new work that may have to be disclosed under Rule 26(e). General defending technique is in the Defending a Deposition Checklist.

Template 15: Model assumptions section for the report

Purpose: report language that discloses counsel-supplied facts and assumptions on the expert's terms, before the other side frames them. Owner: the expert drafts it; the retaining lawyer reviews it for completeness, not for substance. When to use: while the report is being written.

Section [X]. Assumptions and information provided by counsel

[X.1] In forming my opinions I relied on the assumptions below, which counsel for [PARTY] asked me to make. For each, I state its basis as I understand it, what I did to evaluate it, and how my opinion would change if it did not hold.

(a) Assumption: The asserted claims are valid and infringed. Basis: A reasonable royalty analysis assumes liability. Effect if not true: My opinions apply only if liability is found.

(b) Assumption: The hypothetical negotiation would have occurred in [March 2015]. Basis: Counsel's identification of the first accused sale, consistent with [BATES RANGE]. Effect if not true: A [mid-2017] date lowers the rate to [0.9] percent; see Exhibit [9].

(c) Assumption: [All accused units practice the asserted claims.] Basis: The opinions of [TECHNICAL EXPERT], Report ¶¶ [__], which I have read and discussed with [him/her]; I have not analyzed infringement myself. Effect if not true: The base falls by the non-practicing units; Exhibit [10] shows the calculation by product line.

[X.2] Facts or data. Counsel provided the materials in Appendix B, Part 1. I obtained the materials in Part 2 myself. Part 3 lists the people I interviewed, with each person's title, the date, the subject, and whether counsel attended.

Drafting commentary. This section turns Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) and the exceptions in Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(ii) and (iii) into a disclosure the expert controls. The "effect if not true" line converts the other side's change question (Template 10) into an answer the expert has already written, which is far better than improvising one at hour six. Assumption (a) is standard: the hypothetical negotiation assumes the patent is valid and infringed, Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Assumption (c) relies on another expert, which is permitted if the expert understands the work and does not merely repeat it, so the report should say what she did to understand it. Never write "counsel instructed me to assume" and stop; an assumption with no stated basis is the easiest target in the report.

Template 16: Objection and instruction scripts

Purpose: the exact words for objections and instructions, and the taking lawyer's responses. Owner: both trial teams; keep a copy at counsel table. When to use: at the deposition.

Form objections (defending). "Objection, form." Give a one-word basis only if asked: compound; vague; mischaracterizes the testimony; mischaracterizes the report; incomplete hypothetical; assumes facts not in evidence; calls for speculation; asked and answered; argumentative; calls for a legal conclusion.

Instruction: drafts. "Objection. The question asks about drafts of the report, which Rule 26(b)(4)(B) protects. I instruct the witness not to answer."

Instruction: counsel communications. "Objection. The question calls for communications with counsel protected by Rule 26(b)(4)(C). I instruct the witness not to answer, except as to compensation, facts or data counsel provided that she considered, and assumptions counsel provided that she relied on. She will answer those."

Instruction: court-ordered limit. "That subject is outside the limits set by the Court's order of [DATE], ECF No. [__]. I instruct the witness not to answer."

Suspension. "I am suspending the deposition to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3). [State the conduct.] We will file [today]."

Taking-side responses. "Counsel, what is the basis for the instruction?" "Will you follow your counsel's instruction?" Then rephrase into an exception: "Without telling me what counsel said, did counsel give you any document you considered for Opinion 3? Which?" and "Did counsel ask you to assume anything for that opinion? What?" If the instruction stands: "We will hold the deposition open on this subject." For a speaking objection: "Counsel, Rule 30(c)(2) requires objections to be concise and nonsuggestive; please state your objection and let the witness answer."

Drafting commentary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) allows an instruction not to answer only to preserve a privilege, to enforce a court-ordered limitation, or to present a Rule 30(d)(3) motion, and Rule 30(d)(2) authorizes sanctions against anyone who impedes or frustrates the examination. Harassing questions do not change the rule: in Redwood v. Dobson, 476 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2007), the Seventh Circuit held that counsel facing harassment may halt the deposition and seek a protective order but may not simply instruct the witness to stay silent, and called the conduct on both sides unprofessional. Form objections not made at the deposition are waived under Rule 32(d)(3)(B), which is why the two-word objection is worth saying. When an instruction stands, the taking side's remedy is a motion to compel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i), with expenses available under Rule 37(a)(5). The Litigation Sanctions and Professional Responsibility Toolkit covers the sanctions motion if it comes to that.

Template 17: Errata and supplementation log

Purpose: one log that routes each post-deposition correction to the right vehicle and records the risk. Owner: the defending lawyer and the expert, together; the taking side keeps a mirror log of the other side's changes. When to use: the day the reporter's notice of availability arrives.

Errata statement. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1), [EXPERT] has reviewed the transcript of the deposition taken on [DATE], made available on [DATE], and makes the changes listed below, with the reason for each. [Signature and date]

Supplement cover letter. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2), [PARTY] serves the attached supplement to the report of [EXPERT]. It corrects [the statement at Tr. 188:3-9], which [EXPERT] discovered was mistaken when [explanation]. It adds no new opinion and relies on no information not previously disclosed. [PARTY] will make [EXPERT] available for up to [two] further hours of deposition limited to the correction, at [PARTY]'s expense for the expert's time.

Drafting commentary. Rule 30(e)(1) gives the witness 30 days after notice that the transcript is available, if review was requested before the deposition ended, to sign a statement of changes in form or substance with reasons. Substantive errata are risky: Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2000) bars contradictory changes that are not plausibly transcription errors; Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) and Garcia v. Pueblo Country Club, 299 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2002) treat them like sham affidavits; BancFirst ex rel. Estate of M.J.H. v. Ford Motor Co., 422 F. App'x 663 (10th Cir. 2011) applied that rule to an expert; and EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building Systems, Inc., 618 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2010) is more flexible but treats a missing reason as enough to strike. A supplement must correct, not improve: courts reject "supplements" that add new analysis, Keener v. United States, 181 F.R.D. 639 (D. Mont. 1998), Akeva L.L.C. v. Mizuno Corp., 212 F.R.D. 306 (M.D.N.C. 2002), and Beller ex rel. Beller v. United States, 221 F.R.D. 689 (D.N.M. 2003). A later declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that contradicts the deposition without explanation meets the sham-affidavit doctrine of Perma Research & Development Co. v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1969) and Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999). The Deposition Designation and Errata Checklist covers the mechanics.

Template 18: Post-deposition digest and Daubert record map

Purpose: turn the transcript into the evidence section of a Rule 702 motion (or opposition) while the testimony is fresh. Owner: the associate who sat second chair, reviewed by the partner. When to use: within a week after the final transcript, and before any errata arrive.

Digest (one row per admission)

Types: lock, door closed, assumption, concession, impeachment. Uses: Rule 702 motion, summary judgment, trial cross, Rule 37(c)(1) motion.

Record map (one block per opinion)

• Element at issue: [702(b) sufficient facts or data]
• Proponent's burden: more likely than not, decided by the court under Rule 104(a)
• Best admissions: [Tr. 141:3-19; 143:2-8]
• Exhibits: [model tab "Rate"; license recitals]
• Proponent's likely response: [declaration explaining the conversion; argument that comparability goes to weight]
• Authority: [cases from Templates 9 to 12]
• Relief requested: [exclude the rate opinion; leave the base; no supplementation beyond correcting identified errors]

Drafting commentary. The preponderance standard of amended Rule 702 is applied by the court under Rule 104(a), as Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) held for preliminary questions generally, and the stakes are high: Sardis v. Overhead Door Corp., 10 F.4th 268 (4th Cir. 2021) reversed a verdict built on expert testimony the district court should have excluded and directed judgment, as Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (2000) permits. Ask for the narrowest relief that wins; judges exclude a defective step more readily than a whole expert. The same admissions support summary judgment, because an expert declaration must be admissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4), and the moving party can rely on the expert's own concessions to show there is no genuine dispute, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). At class certification, map each admission to whether the model measures only the damages attributable to the theory of liability, Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013). Flag trial designations as you digest: the deposition may impeach under Rule 32(a)(2), may come in as substantive testimony if the expert is more than 100 miles away, unless the offering party procured the absence, under Rule 32(a)(4)(B), and invites completeness counter-designations under Rule 32(a)(6) and Fed. R. Evid. 106. For the trial side, see Using Depositions at Trial and on Summary Judgment and Designating and Playing Deposition Testimony at Trial.

Frequently asked questions

Do I need both a Rule 34 request and a Rule 45 subpoena for the expert's file? Usually, yes. The request (Template 3) reaches what the retaining party controls, and the subpoena served with the notice (Template 4) reaches the expert directly without the stand-alone subpoena problem of Marsh v. Jackson. If the expert stipulation fixes a production date, the subpoena becomes a backstop. Service and objection mechanics are in Rule 45 Subpoenas to Nonparties.

Can the parties agree to more protection than Rule 26 provides, or less? Yes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29 lets parties modify discovery procedures by stipulation, and many expert stipulations add protection for notes and working drafts. Have the court enter it anyway, both so the clawback paragraph becomes a Rule 502(d) order and because a parallel state case may not follow the federal rule.

The other side's expert wants triple his usual rate for the deposition. What do I do? Offer the rate he charges the side that hired him, pay testimony time, offer capped preparation time, and put it in writing (Template 6). If that fails, ask the court to set the fee under Rule 26(b)(4)(E) rather than postponing; courts regularly cut rates that exceed what the expert bills his own client.

My expert interviewed the client's engineers. Is that discoverable? Yes. Rule 26(b)(4)(C) protects only communications with the party's attorneys, so conversations with employees, other experts, and the expert's own staff are open. Have counsel attend or have the expert keep a short record, and list the interviews in the report as facts considered (Template 15).

Do these templates work for a treating physician or an employee expert? Partly. A Rule 26(a)(2)(C) witness writes no report, so Templates 7 and 15 do not apply, and counsel's communications with that witness are not protected by Rule 26(b)(4)(C). The outline, the funnel worksheet, and the impeachment script work as written, and the deposition is the only place to learn the basis of each opinion. Ask when and how each opinion was formed, because a treater whose causation opinion was formed for the litigation may need a full report.

The other side served a "supplemental" report with new opinions after the deposition. What now? Compare it line by line with the original report and the transcript, then decide between a motion to strike under Rule 37(c)(1) and a continued deposition at the proponent's expense; often you ask for both in the alternative. The lock questions from Template 8 are your best evidence that the opinions are new.

Did the 2023 amendment to Rule 702 change how these templates should be used? It changed the emphasis. Because the proponent must carry each element by a preponderance, opinion by opinion, Templates 9 and 18 organize everything by element. Build admissions that win whether the judge applies the amended rule faithfully or still reaches for pre-2023 weight language.

Practical takeaways

• Put the protection map and the expert stipulation in place before anyone drafts a report; structure is cheaper than rescue.
• Ask for the expert's file twice, by Rule 34 request early and by subpoena rider with the notice, with production at least a week before the deposition.
• Settle the fee in writing, tied to what the expert charges the retaining party, with preparation time capped.
• Outline by Rule 702 element and by opinion, and write the admission you want before you ask for it.
• On the defending side, give the report an assumptions section with an "effect if not true" line, teach the three exceptions, object in two words, and instruct only on the grounds Rule 30(c)(2) allows.
• Digest the transcript within a week, and route substantive corrections through a Rule 26(e) supplement rather than an errata sheet.

This document is general information, not legal advice for any particular situation; the law changes, and the facts matter.

Related Documents

Related Articles

• Expert Depositions: Taking Apart the Opinion, Protecting Your Own Expert, and Building the Daubert Record: the doctrine behind every template here, with two worked examples.
• Expert Witnesses After the 2023 Amendment to Rule 702: Daubert, Disclosure, and Cross-Examination: the gatekeeping standard the deposition is built to satisfy or defeat.
• Using Depositions at Trial and on Summary Judgment: Rule 32, Designations, Errata Sheets, and Impeachment: what happens to the transcript after the deposition.
• Patent Damages: Reasonable Royalties, Lost Profits, Apportionment, and Enhancement: the law behind the patent royalty module.
• Proving Copyright Infringement: Access, Substantial Similarity, and the Tests Courts Actually Use: the law behind the software copyright module.
• Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product for Businesses: Upjohn, In-House Counsel, and the Common Interest: the work product doctrine that Rule 26(b)(4) extends to experts.

Related Guides

• Taking and Defending an Expert Deposition: A Practical Guide: the step-by-step sequence these templates support.
• Proving and Attacking Patent Damages: A Practical Guide: building and attacking royalty models.
• Designating and Playing Deposition Testimony at Trial: A Practical Guide: designations, counter-designations, and video at trial.
• Proving or Defending Against Trade Secret Damages: A Practical Guide: adapting the damages questions to unjust enrichment and royalty experts.

Related Checklists

• Expert Deposition Preparation Checklist: A Practical Checklist: every task, in order, for both sides.
• Expert Disclosure and Daubert Challenge Checklist: A Practical Checklist: disclosures, deadlines, and the motion.
• Deposition Designation and Errata Checklist: A Practical Checklist: errata deadlines and designation steps.
• Preparing a Privilege Log: A Practical Checklist: when protected expert materials must be logged and how.
• Rule 45 Subpoena Response Checklist: A Practical Checklist: responding to the subpoena served on your expert.

Related Toolkits

• Expert Witness Toolkit: selecting, retaining, and disclosing experts before the deposition stage.
• Deposition Practice Toolkit: Taking, Defending, and Using Depositions in Federal Litigation: general deposition forms and technique.
• Deposition Use Toolkit: Designation Charts, Objection Logs, and Impeachment Scripts: the trial-side counterpart to Templates 13 and 18.
• Patent Damages Toolkit: Royalty Models, Expert Reports, and Daubert Motions: royalty models and the Daubert motion.
• Copyright Infringement Litigation Toolkit: Similarity Charts, Expert Reports, and Filtration Analyses: filtration charts and software expert reports.
• Confidentiality Toolkit: Protective Orders, Designation Challenges, and Sealing Motions: the protective-order provisions that govern what experts may see.
• Discovery Toolkit: A Roadmap and Resource Guide for Federal Discovery: the wider discovery framework.