Opinion ID: 2103097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Vanishing Trial

Text: Actually getting to the merits of a controversy and having a trial is becoming an increasingly remote possibility as modern trials evolve, in part because of the discovery provisions at issue here. The mind games that attorneys and expert witnesses play with one another may be amusing at times, but they are costly. In the federal court system, whose discovery this Court unfortunately emulates, [4] only about 1.8 percent of cases survive to be tried. [5] What aptly has been called the vanishing trial is caused in large part by the misery and expense of civil discovery. [6] Depositions of retained experts are the biggest waste of time and money in the system. They result in immodest fees to experts; a steady source of income for court reporters; and, for attorneys billing by the hour, a cushion of comfort our forebears in the legal profession hardly could have imagined. [7] I cannot recall a single instance in which the discovery deposition of an expert witness revealed anything of real value in a lawsuit. There probably are some instances in which discovery was useful, but the information surely could have been obtained by other, less costly means. Perhaps this observation means I have a bad memory, I have led a sheltered life or I am exaggerating. Even admitting to any of these personal failings, however, does not negate my point that the financial and emotional costs of expert witness discovery far outweigh its usefulness. Moreover, as most experienced trial attorneys know, many experts welcome depositionsnot just for the income they provide but also because they give the experts an opportunity to be educated about the adversary's approach to cross-examination. The adversary, of course, pays for this education.