Source: http://forensicsvirginia.com/trigon-ins-v-u-s.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:03:43+00:00

Document:
reports of the testifying experts of the United States.
Motion” or “Motion for Appropriate Relief”).
filed a motion pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
December 22, 2000, the United States submitted the sworn declaration of Bruce F.
any principal or employee of [AGE] in connection with this case; ….
and prep the experts.” Id.
writing by AGE for the United States’ testifying experts would not be acceptable.
that they had reviewed each other’s reports.
apparent that some of the experts were publicly advertised as “affiliates” of AGE.
the basis on which AGE asserted that recovery was not possible.
encompass communications between the testifying experts as well as draft reports.
the United States Department of Justice dated December 26, 2000.
the United States Department of Justice dated January 4, 2001.
FN5. Subpoena in a Civil Case, dated January 5, 2001.
the United States Department of Justice dated January 10, 2001.
opinions….” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) (emphasis supplied).
importance in understanding and testing the validity of an expert’s opinion.
which the expert relied) by an expert witness are to be disclosed. In Karn v.
of reports sent from and to the *283 testifying experts. See, e.g., Georgou v.
more important to a cross-examination than the documents actually relied upon).
and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Lamonds, 180 F.R.D. at 305.
meaning of Rule 26(b)(3).” B.C.F. Oil, 171 F.R.D. at 62 (citations omitted).
cooperatively with other experts and under the auspices of AGE.
have produced the draft reports and communications with draft reports attached.
experts whose work AGE directed, destroyed many of the documents.
in resolving Trigon’s motion is to understand the concept of spoliation.
as “[t]he intentional destruction of evidence….”). See also Vodusek v.
Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76, 78 (3rd Cir.1994).
wrongdoer.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 1086 (6th ed.1997).
in allowing a party to destroy evidence and then to benefit from that conduct.
a party in the same position who does not destroy the [evidence].’ ” Anderson v.
other evidence that may be less persuasive, less accessible or both.
the exercise of all others.” United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34, 3 L.Ed.
also Ex parte Robinson, 86 U.S. [19 Wall.] 505, 510, 22 L.Ed. 205 (1873).
U.S. 626, 630-631, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-1389, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)).
of admissible evidence, and destroys such documents.” Id.
F.2d 75, 80-81 (2nd Cir.1992).
Midwest v. American Automatic, 23 F.Supp.2d 623, 626 (D.Md.1998).
charge to the jury and the jury subsequently found for the defendant.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit upheld the adverse inference instruction.
at trial and otherwise would naturally have been introduced into evidence.
party.” 2 Wigmore on Evidence, s 285 at 192 (Chadbourn rev.1979).
Vodusek, 71 F.3d at 156.
844 F.2d 1239, 1246 (6th Cir.1988); Nation-Wide Check Corp., 692 F.2d at 218).
not necessary to obtain relief from spoliation.
some party’s claim.” Anderson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 866 F.Supp.
937, 945-46 (E.D.Va.1994) (citing to Nation-Wide Check Corp., 692 F.2d at 219).
actions that would result in the destruction of the evidence.
evidence is relevant to litigation.” Kronisch, 150 F.3d at 126. See Bowman v.
is required before sanctions for spoliation may obtain. See Anderson v.
if in fact shown to have occurred, becomes relevant.”).
866 F.Supp. at 945-946 (quoting Nation-Wide Check Corp., 692 F.2d at 219).
to circumstances of spoliation. As cogently explained in *288Gates Rubber Co.
serve to deter such conduct by others in the future.
Id. at 79 (citations omitted). See also Bowman, 1998 WL 721079, 1998 U.S. Dist.
1. Was There A Duty To Preserve The Evidence At Issue?
between the testifying experts, and the draft reports of the experts are evidence.
As noted in Section I, under the mandatory disclosure rules of Fed.R.Civ.P.
was duty-bound not to destroy such documents.
2. Was The Evidence Intentionally Destroyed?
the conclusion that the evidence was destroyed intentionally.
interpreting it, as applied to the facts here require disclosure of such evidence.
trial for cross-examination and Daubert purposes.
situation even in the world of today’s litigation.
party is an essential tool for exposing any weaknesses in the expert’s opinions.
discover the material provided to the expert by the lawyer or consultant.
“reliable principles and methods” to “sufficient facts or data”. Fed.R.Evid. 702.
just another legal practitioner for the client.
experts’ opinions and the influences upon them, are invaluable.
opinions and about the ghost writing of the opinions.
effectively to cross-examine most of the United States’ testifying experts.
report. See Trigon’s Supplemental Brief on Motion for Appropriate Relief, at 14.
Fragments of e-mails that were recovered by Deloitte & Touche evidence that Dr.
THE END OF YOUR REPORT YET BECAUSE WE ARE DOING SO.” Id. at 15, Exhibit 9.
could taint all of the expert evidence to be offered by the United States.
start over would constitute an even greater prejudice than currently exists.
process of evaluating the expert evidence to be offered by the United States.
cross-examining the experts offered by Trigon.
associated with the United States’ spoliation of documents.
sanctions are appropriate on the record here presented.
report by someone other than the expert purporting to have written it.
expected that counsel may assist some witnesses” in preparing their reports).
Recent cases have helped to clarify this issue. In Marek v. Moore, 171 F.R.D.
298 (D.Kan.1997), an expert had submitted a report to counsel who had engaged him.
and designating all supporting exhibits.
and Mandatory Disclosure: A Guide to Efficient Practice s 1[b] (2nd ed.1994)).
modes of obtaining an expert’s signature to an opinion not truly his own.
drafted the portion of the report that included his opinions and bases for them.
the evidence of independent thought shown in the experts own work papers.
plaintiffs’ counsel also signed the report. Id.
expert’s input to ensure that it complies with the rules is permissible.
Manning, 1999 WL 342715, *2-3.
cloth” and asked the expert to sign it as if it were his own. Id.
signing one’s name at the bottom to signify agreement.
alleged in a complaint” in his report.
F.R.D. 291, 293-94 (S.D.Ind.1997) (parenthetical omitted).
confronted at his deposition with questions about the authorship of his report.
express the opinions of the lawyers who hired them. See, e.g., C. Baxter Int’l.
who will be trying the case).
the facts of the case.”); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
determine a fact in issue.”).
on upon which he did not rely and did not fully *295 believe should be followed.
practice of experts in his field, or even his own normal practice.
expert must report on the basis of his own knowledge and expertise.
participate as the alter-ego of the attorney who will be trying the case.
independence as an expert witness destroys his credibility”); Folden v.
course, is the sine qua non of admissibility of expert testimony.
substantive assistance in drafting the expert’s report.
and they can be used to show the lack of independence.
missing documents, will take this into consideration in its evaluation of Dr.
experts, the Court will act appropriately at trial.
Trigon Ins. Co. v. U.S.
204 F.R.D. 277, 88 A.F.T.R.2d 2001-6883, 51 Fed.R.Serv.3d 378, 57 Fed. R. Evid.
Cargill, Inc. v. C & P Towing Co., Inc.

References: v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.