{ "version": "1.0", "schema": "https://entitymap.org/spec/v1.0", "profile": "core", "publisher": { "name": "Trial Witness", "url": "https://www.trialwitness.com/" }, "generated": "2026-08-15T00:00:00Z", "verificationStatus": "self-declared", "entities": [ { "entityId": "e_daubert_standard", "@type": "Concept", "name": "The Daubert Standard", "alternateName": "Daubert", "description": "What the Supreme Court actually held in 1993, what it expressly did not hold, and how the standard reads under Rule 702 today.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_daubert-standard", "text": "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993), was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in an opinion by Justice Blackmun. The question presented was whether the Frye general-acceptance test, which had governed novel scientific evidence in the federal courts for decades, survived the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It did not: “The Federal Rules of Evidence, not Frye , provide the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial.” 509 U.S. at 585.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/daubert-standard/", "pageTitle": "The Daubert Standard: What the Case Held | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_federal", "targetName": "The Federal Framework" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_daubert_factors", "@type": "Concept", "name": "The Daubert Factors", "alternateName": "Daubert Factors", "description": "What the Court actually listed at 509 U.S. 593-94, why it declined to make a checklist of it, and which criteria fit a non-scientific expert.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_daubert-factors", "text": "The considerations attorneys call the Daubert factors appear at 509 U.S. 593–94, and the Court introduced them with a disclaimer that is part of the holding rather than an aside: “Many factors will bear on the inquiry, and we do not presume to set out a definitive checklist or test.” A page later it added, of the inquiry Rule 702 envisions, that it “is … a flexible one.” 509 U.S. at 594. Both sentences are routinely dropped when the factors are reproduced, and dropping them inverts what the opinion says.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/daubert-factors/", "pageTitle": "The Daubert Factors: Non-Exclusive by Design | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_federal", "targetName": "The Federal Framework" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_federal_rule_of_evidence_702", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Federal Rule of Evidence 702", "alternateName": "FRE 702", "description": "The operative text since 1 December 2023, the two things the amendment changed, and the Advisory Committee's stated reason for changing them.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_federal-rule-of-evidence-702", "text": "FRE 702 in its current form took effect 1 December 2023 . It provides: “ Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses. A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/federal-rule-of-evidence-702/", "pageTitle": "Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as Amended | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_federal", "targetName": "The Federal Framework" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_federal_rule_of_evidence_703", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Federal Rule of Evidence 703", "alternateName": "FRE 703", "description": "What an expert opinion may rest on, the field-based test that governs reliance, and the reversed Rule 403 balance on disclosure.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_federal-rule-of-evidence-703", "text": "FRE 703 answers a different question from FRE 702 . Rule 702 asks whether an opinion is admissible. Rule 703 asks what the opinion may be built out of, and what the jury may be told about it. Its current text took effect 1 December 2011: “ Rule 703. Bases of an Expert’s Opinion Testimony. An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/federal-rule-of-evidence-703/", "pageTitle": "Federal Rule of Evidence 703: The Basis | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_federal", "targetName": "The Federal Framework" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_kumho_tire_and_joiner", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Kumho Tire and Joiner", "alternateName": "Kumho and Joiner", "description": "The two decisions that completed the trilogy: the standard of appellate review, the analytical gap, and gatekeeping beyond science.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_kumho-tire-and-joiner", "text": "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993), established that the Federal Rules of Evidence rather than Frye govern expert proof and that the trial judge must ensure testimony is both relevant and reliable. It left two questions unanswered that matter more to the daily practice of expert litigation than anything the opinion resolved. The first was scope.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/kumho-tire-and-joiner/", "pageTitle": "Kumho Tire and Joiner: Completing Daubert | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_federal", "targetName": "The Federal Framework" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_frye_standard", "@type": "Concept", "name": "The Frye Standard", "alternateName": "Frye", "description": "What Frye v. United States actually held, the passage that is constantly paraphrased wrongly, and where general acceptance still decides.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_frye-standard", "text": "Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013, was decided on 3 December 1923 by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia — an intermediate federal appellate court and the predecessor of today’s D.C. Circuit. The modern citation form, “D.C. Cir. 1923,” is shorthand for a court that was not then styled that way. It is not a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which has never adopted the test and which, the one time it addressed the question squarely, held the test inapplicable in federal court.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/frye-standard/", "pageTitle": "The Frye Standard: What the 1923 Case Said | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_states", "targetName": "Frye and the States" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_daubert_vs_frye", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Daubert and Frye Compared", "alternateName": "Daubert vs Frye", "description": "What general acceptance asks, what Rule 702 asks, and why neither standard is uniformly stricter than the other.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_daubert-vs-frye", "text": "The general-acceptance test asks a question about a community. Has the technique “gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs”? Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923). The court surveys the field; the field, in substance, decides. Whether the technique actually works is not the question, and under the stricter state formulations the judge is not permitted to make it the question. FRE 702 asks a question about a method.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/daubert-vs-frye/", "pageTitle": "Daubert and Frye Compared | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_states", "targetName": "Frye and the States" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_state_admissibility_standards", "@type": "Concept", "name": "State Admissibility Standards", "alternateName": "By State", "description": "The confirmed general-acceptance states, the states that changed sides and when, and the third column that binary charts hide.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_state-admissibility-standards", "text": "There is no authoritative national register of state expert-admissibility standards. Every published fifty-state chart is a private compilation, they disagree with one another, and most of the freely available ones are stale. That is not a criticism of the people who compile them. The map moves by legislation, by court rule and by decision, in fifty jurisdictions, on no common schedule. Three further cautions apply to any such list, including the material below. The label is often the wrong unit of analysis.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/state-admissibility-standards/", "pageTitle": "State Expert Admissibility Standards | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_states", "targetName": "Frye and the States" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_daubert_hearing", "@type": "Concept", "name": "The Daubert Hearing", "alternateName": "Daubert Hearing", "description": "Whether a hearing happens at all is the judge's call. What gets decided, in what form, and what the record has to show.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_daubert-hearing", "text": "Nothing in FRE 702 , FRE 104 or the case law requires a hearing before a court rules on the admissibility of expert testimony. That is the first thing to know about the proceeding, and it is the thing most often left unsaid. A great many Rule 702 rulings are made on the written submissions — the motion, the response, the expert’s report and the deposition transcript — without live testimony and sometimes without argument. The authority is Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael , 526 U.S.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/daubert-hearing/", "pageTitle": "The Daubert Hearing: When Courts Hold One | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_motions", "targetName": "How It Is Raised" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_daubert_motion", "@type": "Concept", "name": "The Daubert Motion", "alternateName": "Daubert Motion", "description": "The vehicle, the elements, the deadline, and what the proponent has to show once reliability has been put in issue.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_daubert-motion", "text": "The phrase is practitioner shorthand and it names an argument rather than a procedural device. No Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or Evidence creates a motion by that name. A challenge to expert testimony under FRE 702 is brought as one of the following: a motion in limine , the usual vehicle; a motion to exclude or to strike the opinion or the report; part of a summary-judgment motion , where exclusion of the opinion is dispositive of an element; an objection at trial , preserved and renewed; or a post-trial motion , where the point has been preserved.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/daubert-motion/", "pageTitle": "The Daubert Motion: How It Is Brought | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_motions", "targetName": "How It Is Raised" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_daubert_challenge", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Challenging an Expert's Methodology", "alternateName": "Daubert Challenge", "description": "The methodological failures that get opinions struck, and the weight-versus-admissibility line the Supreme Court declined to settle.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_daubert-challenge", "text": "A challenge that opens by comparing curricula vitae is usually a challenge that fails. A witness whose credentials are less impressive than the opposing expert’s is still qualified, and the Tenth Circuit’s formulation — drawn from Compton v. Subaru of America, Inc. , 82 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1996) — is that the question is whether the issue falls “within the reasonable confines” of the expert’s subject area. A mere lack of specialization goes to weight.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/daubert-challenge/", "pageTitle": "Challenging an Expert's Methodology | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_motions", "targetName": "How It Is Raised" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_motion_in_limine", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Motions in Limine on Expert Testimony", "alternateName": "Motion in Limine", "description": "What a motion in limine can do to an expert beyond a reliability challenge, and when the objection has to be renewed at trial.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_motion-in-limine", "text": "A motion in limine asks the court to rule on the admissibility of evidence before it is offered in front of the jury . No Federal Rule creates it; it is a creature of practice, governed in each courtroom by the scheduling order, the local rules and the judge’s standing order. That distinction matters because the motion and the argument it carries are routinely conflated.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/motion-in-limine/", "pageTitle": "Motions in Limine on Expert Testimony | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_motions", "targetName": "How It Is Raised" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_voir_dire_of_an_expert", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Voir Dire of an Expert", "alternateName": "Voir Dire", "description": "What voir dire of an expert is for, why no tender is required in federal court, and what the questioning can realistically achieve.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_voir-dire-of-an-expert", "text": "Voir dire of an expert is preliminary questioning by opposing counsel that interrupts the direct examination , directed at the witness’s qualifications or at the foundation for the opinion about to be given. It is not cross-examination, it is not open-ended, and it happens before the witness is permitted to express the opinion. The authority is FRE 104(a) : whether a witness is qualified and whether evidence is admissible are preliminary questions for the court, decided without regard to the rules of evidence except those on privilege.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/voir-dire-of-an-expert/", "pageTitle": "Voir Dire of an Expert Witness | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_motions", "targetName": "How It Is Raised" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_how_to_find_an_expert_witness", "@type": "Concept", "name": "How to Find an Expert Witness", "alternateName": "Finding an Expert", "description": "Seven routes to a candidate expert, what each one actually tells a buyer, and the checks that belong before the first document is sent.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_how-to-find-an-expert-witness", "text": "Counsel who has just concluded that a case needs an expert usually begins by searching for a discipline and a credential — an economist, a metallurgist, a physician in a particular specialty. That is the right first cut and it is not the question that decides the retention. The question that decides it is narrower: whose method, applied to the facts that exist in this record, will support an opinion that can be stated to a reasonable degree of certainty and defended under FRE 702 .", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/how-to-find-an-expert-witness/", "pageTitle": "How to Find an Expert Witness | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_finding", "targetName": "Finding and Vetting" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_vetting_an_expert_witness", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Vetting an Expert Witness", "alternateName": "Vetting", "description": "Testimony history, prior exclusions, publications, credentials and CV drift - what a pre-retention check can establish and what it cannot.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_vetting-an-expert-witness", "text": "Whatever an expert is eventually asked to produce under FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) is what counsel should ask for at the outset, because it will be produced anyway and because the exercise of producing it early reveals how organized the candidate is.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/vetting-an-expert-witness/", "pageTitle": "Vetting an Expert Witness Before Retention | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_finding", "targetName": "Finding and Vetting" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_expert_witness_directories", "@type": "Concept", "name": "How Expert Witness Directories Work", "alternateName": "Directories", "description": "How listing directories, referral brokers and subscription platforms actually make money, and what a listing does and does not establish.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_expert-witness-directories", "text": "This page describes how the market for finding an expert is organized. It does not rank, compare or assess named directories, brokers or platforms, and that is a disclosed position rather than an omission: Hartzer Consulting is itself a listed expert in that market, and a comparison written by a participant is worth nothing to a buyer. Where a company is named below, it is because that company published something being cited, not as an endorsement or a criticism.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/expert-witness-directories/", "pageTitle": "How Expert Witness Directories Work | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_finding", "targetName": "Finding and Vetting" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_conflict_checks", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Conflict Checks", "alternateName": "Conflicts", "description": "The Wang two-part test, how courts treat an exploratory call, and what happens when a conflict surfaces after the disclosure deadline.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_conflict-checks", "text": "The instinct to reason from the rules of professional conduct produces the wrong answer here. There is no expert analogue to Model Rule 1.7, no duty of loyalty running from a candidate expert to a party who once spoke to them, and no rule of procedure that disqualifies an expert for having worked for the other side before. Experts are not fiduciaries of the parties who retain them, and the same economist, engineer or physician routinely appears for plaintiffs in one matter and defendants in the next.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/conflict-checks/", "pageTitle": "Conflict Checks for Expert Witnesses | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_finding", "targetName": "Finding and Vetting" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_expert_witness_fees", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Expert Witness Fees and Rates", "alternateName": "Fees and Rates", "description": "Named surveys with sample sizes and dates, the structure of an expert quote, and why every published average was produced by a seller.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_expert-witness-fees", "text": "There is no probability-sample survey of what expert witnesses charge in the United States. No bar association publishes one. No peer-reviewed study of expert compensation was located in the research behind this page; the academic literature on expert witnesses addresses use, admissibility and juror perception rather than price. What exists is a small number of recurring publications, and each is produced by a company that sells into this market. SEAK, Inc.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/expert-witness-fees/", "pageTitle": "Expert Witness Fees and Rates | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_terms", "targetName": "Money and Terms" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_who_pays_for_expert_discovery", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Who Pays for Expert Discovery", "alternateName": "Who Pays", "description": "What FRCP 26(b)(4)(E) actually shifts, what a reasonable fee means, and the four positions district courts take on preparation time.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_who-pays-for-expert-discovery", "text": "The payment provision is short, and it is worth reading in full before anything is argued about it. FRCP 26(b)(4)(E) : “Unless manifest injustice would result, the court must require that the party seeking discovery: (i) pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under Rule 26(b)(4)(A) or (D); and (ii) for discovery under (D), also pay the other party a fair portion of the fees and expenses it reasonably incurred in obtaining the expert's facts and opinions.” Three features do most of the work.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/who-pays-for-expert-discovery/", "pageTitle": "Who Pays for Expert Discovery | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_terms", "targetName": "Money and Terms" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_engagement_letters", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Expert Engagement Letters", "alternateName": "Engagement Letters", "description": "What belongs in an expert engagement letter, why the designation clause comes first, and which clause is discoverable by design.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_engagement-letters", "text": "An expert engagement letter is a commercial contract that also allocates litigation risk, and it is written before any privileged material reaches the expert because two of its clauses only work if they precede the work. The designation clause determines whether the expert's analysis is protected. The conflicts clause determines whether the analysis can be used at all.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/engagement-letters/", "pageTitle": "Expert Witness Engagement Letters | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_terms", "targetName": "Money and Terms" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_expert_witness_reports", "@type": "Concept", "name": "The Expert Witness Report", "alternateName": "The Report", "description": "What a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report has to contain, who writes and signs it, and what separates one that holds up from one that does not.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_expert-witness-reports", "text": "A report served under FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) is not a summary, a letter to retaining counsel, or a preview of what the witness might say. The 1993 Advisory Committee Note describes it as a document “intended to set forth the substance of the direct examination,” and the first of the six required contents is “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” Complete is the operative word, and it is the word most often treated as aspirational.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/expert-witness-reports/", "pageTitle": "What an Expert Witness Report Contains | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_record", "targetName": "The Record" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_rule_26_disclosure", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Rule 26 Expert Disclosure", "alternateName": "Rule 26 Disclosure", "description": "The two disclosure tracks, all six report contents, the timing that actually controls, and the Rule 37(c)(1) exclusion that follows a default.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_rule-26-disclosure", "text": "FRCP 26(a)(2)(A) requires a party to disclose “the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.” Retained or not, paid or not — if the testimony will rest on those rules, the witness has to be identified as an expert. The subparagraph opens “In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1),” which disposes of the assumption that naming someone in initial disclosures as a fact witness has disclosed them as an expert.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/rule-26-disclosure/", "pageTitle": "Rule 26 Expert Disclosure Explained | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_record", "targetName": "The Record" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_drafts_and_communications", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Drafts and Communications", "alternateName": "Drafts", "description": "What the 2010 amendments protect, the three exceptions in Rule 26(b)(4)(C), and the parts of an expert's file that were never covered at all.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_drafts-and-communications", "text": "Before December 2010, a testifying expert's drafts and correspondence with counsel were routinely discoverable, and the profession adapted in expensive ways. The Advisory Committee described what it had been told: “The Committee has been told repeatedly that routine discovery into attorney-expert communications and draft reports has had undesirable effects.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/drafts-and-communications/", "pageTitle": "Expert Drafts and Communications | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_record", "targetName": "The Record" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_expert_witness_deposition", "@type": "Concept", "name": "The Expert Witness Deposition", "alternateName": "Deposition", "description": "What the rule authorizes, why seven hours is often not enough, the three-way errata split, and the examinations that produce exclusion material.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_expert-witness-deposition", "text": "The whole of the authority is FRCP 26(b)(4)(A) : “A party may depose any person who has been identified as an expert whose opinions may be presented at trial. If Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires a report from the expert, the deposition may be conducted only after the report is provided.” Four things follow from them. No leave and no showing of need. Unlike the consultant provision at FRCP 26(b)(4)(D) , which requires “exceptional circumstances,” this deposition is available as of right once the witness is identified.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/expert-witness-deposition/", "pageTitle": "The Expert Witness Deposition | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_testimony", "targetName": "Deposition and Trial" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_rebuttal_reports", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Rebuttal Reports", "alternateName": "Rebuttal", "description": "What a rebuttal report may attack, why new data and new methods are permitted but new theories are not, and the diagnostic courts actually apply.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_rebuttal-reports", "text": "The rebuttal disclosure has no separate rule of its own. It exists inside the timing provision, at FRCP 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) , which sets the deadline for evidence “intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or (C).” Both qualifiers are load-bearing. Solely excludes a report that does two jobs, and same subject matter excludes a report that answers something the opposing expert did not address.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/rebuttal-reports/", "pageTitle": "Rebuttal Reports in Expert Discovery | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_testimony", "targetName": "Deposition and Trial" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_trial_testimony", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Testifying at Trial", "alternateName": "Trial Testimony", "description": "How the trial testimony is structured, what Rule 705 permits, and the December 2024 rules that decide what goes back to the jury room.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_trial-testimony", "text": "Admissibility is the court's question. FRE 104(a) provides that “[t]he court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege.” Three consequences run through the whole of an expert's trial appearance.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/trial-testimony/", "pageTitle": "Expert Witness Testifying at Trial | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "PART_OF", "target": "e_disc_testimony", "targetName": "Deposition and Trial" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_seo", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Search engine optimization", "description": "The practice of configuring a website and its content so search engines can crawl, understand and rank it, and the discipline most of the work on this site belongs to.", "sameAs": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_seo", "text": "The practice of configuring a website and its content so search engines can crawl, understand and rank it, and the discipline most of the work on this site belongs to.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/seo-consulting/", "pageTitle": "SEO Consulting | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_sem", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Search engine marketing", "description": "Marketing through search engines, a term used at different times to mean the umbrella covering both organic and paid work, and to mean paid placement alone.", "sameAs": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_marketing", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_sem", "text": "Marketing through search engines, a term used at different times to mean the umbrella covering both organic and paid work, and to mean paid placement alone.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/what-search-engine-marketing-includes/", "pageTitle": "What Search Engine Marketing Includes | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_ppc", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Pay-per-click", "description": "Advertising sold on a per-click basis, and the model behind the paid results that sit above and around the organic ones.", "sameAs": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-per-click", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_ppc", "text": "Advertising sold on a per-click basis, and the model behind the paid results that sit above and around the organic ones.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/ppc-consulting/", "pageTitle": "PPC Consulting | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_analytics", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Web analytics", "description": "The measurement and reporting of website traffic and behaviour, and the first place any claim about search performance has to be checked.", "sameAs": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_analytics", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_analytics", "text": "The measurement and reporting of website traffic and behaviour, and the first place any claim about search performance has to be checked.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/how-results-are-measured/", "pageTitle": "How Results Are Measured | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_cwv", "@type": "Concept", "name": "Core Web Vitals", "description": "Google's set of user-experience metrics measured from real user data at the 75th percentile, covering loading, interaction responsiveness and layout stability.", "sameAs": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Web_Vitals", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_cwv", "text": "Google's set of user-experience metrics measured from real user data at the 75th percentile, covering loading, interaction responsiveness and layout stability.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/guides/core-web-vitals-in-practice/", "pageTitle": "Core Web Vitals in Practice | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_ecom", "@type": "Concept", "name": "E-commerce", "description": "Selling online, and the context in which faceted navigation, product indexation and inventory state become search problems rather than merchandising ones.", "sameAs": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-commerce", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_ecom", "text": "Selling online, and the context in which faceted navigation, product indexation and inventory state become search problems rather than merchandising ones.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/ecommerce-seo-consulting/", "pageTitle": "E-commerce SEO Consulting | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_disc_federal", "@type": "Taxonomy", "name": "The Federal Framework", "description": "Rule 702, Daubert, and the decisions that built the gatekeeping obligation.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_disc_federal", "text": "Rule 702, Daubert, and the decisions that built the gatekeeping obligation.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/disciplines/", "pageTitle": "Disciplines | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Daubert Standard", "target": "e_daubert_standard" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Daubert Factors", "target": "e_daubert_factors" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Federal Rule of Evidence 702", "target": "e_federal_rule_of_evidence_702" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Federal Rule of Evidence 703", "target": "e_federal_rule_of_evidence_703" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Kumho Tire and Joiner", "target": "e_kumho_tire_and_joiner" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_disc_states", "@type": "Taxonomy", "name": "Frye and the States", "description": "Where the forum's standard is not the federal one, and how far it diverges.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_disc_states", "text": "Where the forum's standard is not the federal one, and how far it diverges.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/disciplines/", "pageTitle": "Disciplines | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Frye Standard", "target": "e_frye_standard" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Daubert and Frye Compared", "target": "e_daubert_vs_frye" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "State Admissibility Standards", "target": "e_state_admissibility_standards" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_disc_motions", "@type": "Taxonomy", "name": "How It Is Raised", "description": "The motions, the hearing, and the moment admissibility is actually decided.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_disc_motions", "text": "The motions, the hearing, and the moment admissibility is actually decided.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/disciplines/", "pageTitle": "Disciplines | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Daubert Hearing", "target": "e_daubert_hearing" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Daubert Motion", "target": "e_daubert_motion" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Challenging an Expert's Methodology", "target": "e_daubert_challenge" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Motions in Limine on Expert Testimony", "target": "e_motion_in_limine" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Voir Dire of an Expert", "target": "e_voir_dire_of_an_expert" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_disc_finding", "@type": "Taxonomy", "name": "Finding and Vetting", "description": "Before anyone is retained, and where the expensive mistakes are made.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_disc_finding", "text": "Before anyone is retained, and where the expensive mistakes are made.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/disciplines/", "pageTitle": "Disciplines | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "How to Find an Expert Witness", "target": "e_how_to_find_an_expert_witness" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Vetting an Expert Witness", "target": "e_vetting_an_expert_witness" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "How Expert Witness Directories Work", "target": "e_expert_witness_directories" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Conflict Checks", "target": "e_conflict_checks" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_disc_terms", "@type": "Taxonomy", "name": "Money and Terms", "description": "What it costs, who pays for what, and what the engagement letter fixes.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_disc_terms", "text": "What it costs, who pays for what, and what the engagement letter fixes.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/disciplines/", "pageTitle": "Disciplines | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Expert Witness Fees and Rates", "target": "e_expert_witness_fees" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Who Pays for Expert Discovery", "target": "e_who_pays_for_expert_discovery" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Expert Engagement Letters", "target": "e_engagement_letters" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_disc_record", "@type": "Taxonomy", "name": "The Record", "description": "The report, the disclosure, and everything that becomes discoverable.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_disc_record", "text": "The report, the disclosure, and everything that becomes discoverable.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/disciplines/", "pageTitle": "Disciplines | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Expert Witness Report", "target": "e_expert_witness_reports" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Rule 26 Expert Disclosure", "target": "e_rule_26_disclosure" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Drafts and Communications", "target": "e_drafts_and_communications" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_disc_testimony", "@type": "Taxonomy", "name": "Deposition and Trial", "description": "After disclosure, when the record is fixed and what remains is examination.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_disc_testimony", "text": "After disclosure, when the record is fixed and what remains is examination.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/disciplines/", "pageTitle": "Disciplines | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Expert Witness Deposition", "target": "e_expert_witness_deposition" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Rebuttal Reports", "target": "e_rebuttal_reports" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Testifying at Trial", "target": "e_trial_testimony" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_grp_standards", "@type": "Taxonomy", "name": "Standards and Admissibility", "description": "The kinds of search marketing work offered here — organic search, paid search, platform and market specifics, and strategy — each labelled with how it is engaged: a one-off audit, a fixed-scope project, a retained engagement, or advisory.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_grp_standards", "text": "The kinds of search marketing work offered here — organic search, paid search, platform and market specifics, and strategy — each labelled with how it is engaged: a one-off audit, a fixed-scope project, a retained engagement, or advisory.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/standards/", "pageTitle": "Standards and Admissibility | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Daubert Standard", "target": "e_daubert_standard" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Daubert Factors", "target": "e_daubert_factors" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Federal Rule of Evidence 702", "target": "e_federal_rule_of_evidence_702" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Federal Rule of Evidence 703", "target": "e_federal_rule_of_evidence_703" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Kumho Tire and Joiner", "target": "e_kumho_tire_and_joiner" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Frye Standard", "target": "e_frye_standard" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Daubert and Frye Compared", "target": "e_daubert_vs_frye" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "State Admissibility Standards", "target": "e_state_admissibility_standards" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Daubert Hearing", "target": "e_daubert_hearing" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Daubert Motion", "target": "e_daubert_motion" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Challenging an Expert's Methodology", "target": "e_daubert_challenge" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Motions in Limine on Expert Testimony", "target": "e_motion_in_limine" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Voir Dire of an Expert", "target": "e_voir_dire_of_an_expert" } ] }, { "entityId": "e_grp_practice", "@type": "Taxonomy", "name": "Retention and Practice", "description": "Answers to the questions a search marketing buyer needs settled before spending anything: what the work is, how to choose someone, what it costs and how long it takes, and how any of it is measured.", "hasChunks": [ { "chunkId": "c_e_grp_practice", "text": "Answers to the questions a search marketing buyer needs settled before spending anything: what the work is, how to choose someone, what it costs and how long it takes, and how any of it is measured.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.trialwitness.com/practice/", "pageTitle": "Retention and Practice | Trial Witness", "publisher": "Trial Witness", "contentType": "definition" } ], "relations": [ { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "How to Find an Expert Witness", "target": "e_how_to_find_an_expert_witness" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Vetting an Expert Witness", "target": "e_vetting_an_expert_witness" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "How Expert Witness Directories Work", "target": "e_expert_witness_directories" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Conflict Checks", "target": "e_conflict_checks" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Expert Witness Fees and Rates", "target": "e_expert_witness_fees" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Who Pays for Expert Discovery", "target": "e_who_pays_for_expert_discovery" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Expert Engagement Letters", "target": "e_engagement_letters" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Expert Witness Report", "target": "e_expert_witness_reports" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Rule 26 Expert Disclosure", "target": "e_rule_26_disclosure" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Drafts and Communications", "target": "e_drafts_and_communications" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "The Expert Witness Deposition", "target": "e_expert_witness_deposition" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Rebuttal Reports", "target": "e_rebuttal_reports" }, { "predicate": "INCLUDES", "targetName": "Testifying at Trial", "target": "e_trial_testimony" } ] } ] }