In re McGhan Medical Corp.

2 Citing cases

  1. Carranza v. Fraas

    763 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2011)   Cited 19 times
    Explaining that “[e]x parte communications between a judge, acting through one of his or her law clerks, and counsel or a witness that do not touch upon the merits of the case generally do not warrant relief,” and citing Kaufman v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 601 F.3d 1088, 1095 (10th Cir.2010), which upheld determination that a telephone call from a judge's law clerk to counsel was harmless and warranted no further investigation or sanctions

    The decision to appoint an expert witness lies within the discretion of the court and "is to be informed by such factors as the complexity of the matters to be determined and the fact-finder's need for a neutral, expert view." Tangwall v. Robb, 2003 WL 23142190, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2003); see also In re McGhan Med. Corp., 2000 WL 1521338, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2000); Applegate, 628 F. Supp. at 383. Courts do not, however, appoint expert witnesses for the purpose of assisting a litigating party. See Hannah v. United States, 2006 WL 2583190, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2006) (declining to appoint an expert witness for a pro se plaintiff because such appointment would merely assist the plaintiff prove his case rather than provide a neutral expert view for the court); Daker Kennedy v. Wetherington, 2006 WL 648765, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2006) (noting that "[l]itigant assistance is not the purpose of Rule 706").

  2. Carranza v. Fraas

    471 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2007)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that Rule 706 is typically invoked in "exceptional cases" where "the ordinary adversary process does not suffice or when a case presents compelling circumstances warranting the appointment of an expert"

    See e.g. In re McGhan Med. Corp., 251 F.3d 166 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (stating that the district court appointed a technical expert "to assist the court" pursuant to Rule 706(a)); Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming the district court's sua sponte appointment of an expert witness following its conclusion "that the medical testimony was not `particularly clear,'" and stating that it was "an appropriate occasion" to appoint an expert "to assist the court in evaluating contradictory evidence"); Gold v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust, 1998 WL 351466, at *2 (D. Conn. June 3, 1998) (declining to appoint an expert witness and designate costs to the defendant pursuant to Rule 706 because the "litigation [did] not raise any complex scientific issues which the Court need[ed] expert guidance to understand"). Quite simply, "litigant assistance" is not the purpose of Rule 706.