united-states witnesses testimony subpoena
Can an expert refuse to give expert testimony?
<p>Can an expert be forced to give expert testimony with the use of a subpeona? Seeing as they are putting there reputation on the line it would not strike me as unfair to force a professional into forensic testimony?</p>

<h2><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a></h2>
<p>Yes and no, that is, the courts have extensive powers to compel testimony, but there are rules about doing so. <a href="https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/can-a-non-retained-expert-be-compelled-to-testify/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This article</a> addresses the question of expert testimony. Suppose you want an expert to testify, then Rule <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26#rule_26_a_2_B" rel="nofollow noreferrer">26(a)(2)(B)</a> applies, requiring disclosure of the information to be disclosed, along with a written report. It could be nearly impossible to provide the required information without the cooperation of the expert. Furthermore, under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rule 45(d)(3)(B)(ii)</a>, a subpoena can be quashed, which the article summarizes in terms of the objections that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Testimony about an expert’s findings may impact or limit an expert’s ability to conduct research</p>
<p>Testimony about an expert’s work may be unethical, if the work is not
completed, peer reviewed, or otherwise in a “publishable” format</p>
<p>The subpoena and resultant testimony could put the expert at a
competitive disadvantage</p>
<p>Work required to adequately prepare for such testimony is overly
burdensome</p>
<p>The subpoena and subsequent testimony may put the unwilling expert in
a controversial or otherwise uncomfortable position</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In a specific instance of subpoenaing an involuntary witness, the court in <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150116a08" rel="nofollow noreferrer">In Re: World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation</a> addressed a motion to compel expert testimony. The opinion lays out various powers of the court to compel a &quot;non-retained&quot; expert witness, including the &quot;substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship&quot;. There is a complex weighing of factors here, which is resolved at the finding that &quot;Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Non-Retained Experts' testimony is unique&quot; so the petition to compel testimony was denied, <em>but</em> the affiliated research center was compelled to disclose the underlying data.</p>
<p>So it depends on the circumstances, see <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/19761350539f2d81111216" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kaufman v. Edelstein</a>, 539 F.2d 811.</p>
