SearchLitigation & Dispute Resolution

Expert Witness Research

Expert witness research that reads an opposing expert’s prior testimony, rulings and papers, and sets her earlier words beside the report she served, each quote pinned to page and line.

Watch it work Book a walkthrough

See one expert’s record become a signed cross ↓

Watch with transcript →

The problem

The contrary quote turns up in a transcript bought after the deposition

When the other side serves an expert report, a research analyst starts from a name. Dockets, transcript vendors, court opinions and journals are searched one at a time, transcripts are bought and read, and namesakes are ruled out one by one. The associate gets a narrative memo, without the page and line she needs to put a statement to the witness.

Transcripts get read for the case at hand, so a contrary statement about another product, made for another side, slips past. The report’s own list of prior testimony is taken on trust. And the expert’s best contradiction often surfaces once the deposition has closed, when it can no longer be put to her.

Built forTrial partnersTrial associatesResearch analystsResearch directors

The Problem Today

The quote where the expert said the opposite sits in thousands of pages, and is usually found after the deposition.

36%: of challenged antitrust economists excluded in whole or in part published
600,000+: testimonial documents one vendor sells for this research published

Searched one source at a time

Dockets
Transcripts
Rulings
Papers

Same name, another expertRecords of a different person mixed into the memo
Disclosure taken on trustA testimony left off the expert’s own list goes unnoticed

The Solution

Whole record foundTestimony, rulings and papers, each checked to be the same person
Each position quotedEach statement kept word for word, pinned to where it was said
Then set beside nowHer earlier words paired with this report; an analyst confirms each
Cross outline, signedCited leading questions; the trial partner signs and decides

Built-in controls

Only confirmed pairs reach the trial team
Agents never contact the expert or the court
Transcripts bought only with a person’s approval

What You Get

Trial teams sit down at the deposition holding the expert’s own contradictions, each with the page that proves it.

4 hours: a research analyst spends per expert, from 30–40 our estimate

A Daubert motion outlinePrior exclusions and her own estimates, for the partner
Disclosure checkedTestimony left off her own list, found and flagged
Rebuttal experts vetted tooThe same research run on the firm’s own candidates

Nine screens on one opposing expert

Expert witness research on one opposing economist, report to signed cross

Each feature below is one screen: what it does, and which member of the trial team relies on it.

01The expert’s dossier
A one-page dossier where every count on the expert opens its list
How it works
- 66 sources and 7,910 transcript pages gathered into one page on the opposing expert
- A career strip plots each testimony by year and by the side that retained her
- CV and firm match on every record kept; 3 records of a namesake set aside
Trial associateSees the expert’s whole record on one page before writing a cross question, instead of waiting days for a narrative memo.
02Prior testimony
A disclosure check that finds testimony missing from the expert’s own list
How it works
- All 38 testimonies listed with date, type, side, industry and pages
- The report lists 14 testimonies in the last 4 years; the record shows 16
- The 2 missing depositions are marked Not listed, older ones Before window
Litigation research analystStops taking the expert’s disclosure list on trust, and hands the associate two depositions the expert left off her own appendix.
03Rulings on the expert
Daubert rulings on the expert, quoted in the court’s own words
How it works
- 4 challenges to her opinions, each with the judge, the opinion challenged and the outcome
- The court’s reason quoted as written and cited to the order’s page
- A note on what each ruling means for this report, linked to its matching pair
- The 2021 order that excluded her pass-through opinion can be added to the motion outline
Trial partnerWeighs a motion to exclude knowing a court has already thrown out the same pass-through step once, and in what words.
04Papers and positions
Her published papers turned into a stance by topic and period
How it works
- 5 topics across six periods, from 2008–10 to 2023–25, beside this report’s own position
- Each cell marked consistent with this report, in tension, or opposite
- 22 papers read; her 2022 estimate of 38–57%, below full, sits against the report’s 100% passed through
Trial associateFinds where the expert has written the opposite of her report without reading twenty-two papers cover to cover.
05Contradictions with this report
Earlier words and this report side by side, confirmed by an analyst
How it works
- 5 pairs proposed at 75% confidence or more, each with its strength
- Both passages shown with numbered lines, the quoted lines highlighted
- Only the research analyst confirms or dismisses, and a dismissal needs a reason
- Pair 01 was held until the full 2019 transcript arrived, then confirmed
Litigation research analystSpends about four hours confirming what the agents found, where researching one expert unaided took thirty to forty.
06Confirmed pairs on the dossier
Confirmed contradictions wait on the dossier, ready for the cross outline
How it works
- Three confirmed contradictions, each with its then and now quotes and both cites
- Pairs 02 and 03 already sit in the cross outline
- Pair 01, confirmed once the full 2019 transcript arrived, waits with Add to cross outline
Trial associateMoves the expert’s own contrary words into the outline as soon as they are confirmed, with the pin cite already attached.
07Cross-examination outline
A cross outline whose every question cites the page that proves it
How it works
- 23 leading questions in 6 chapters, drawn from confirmed pairs, rulings and the disclosure gap only
- Each question cites a transcript line, an order page or a report paragraph
- Her own numbers: $54.0M at 100%, $30.8M at her published 57%, $20.5M at 38%
- Chapters on the two testimonies not on her list, and on fees and sides
Trial associateGoes into the deposition with questions she can put to the expert and prove from the record if the answer drifts.
08Signed cross outline
A sign-off that only the trial partner can give, sealed once given
How it works
- The panel shows who confirmed the pairs, who built the outline and who signs
- An associate who tries to sign is told only the trial partner can
- Once signed, a change needs a new version and the partner’s signature
Trial partnerSigns knowing each question rests on a pair the analyst confirmed, and that any later change needs a new version signed again.
09Rebuttal candidates
The same research turned on the firm’s own rebuttal candidates
How it works
- Three candidates set side by side on testimonies, challenges, exclusions and rate
- Each candidate’s published view on pass-through, the one most likely to be read back
- The associate or analyst recommends; the partner decides who is retained
Trial partnerSees which candidate’s own papers would undercut pair 02 before retaining a rebuttal economist, and before the plaintiffs find them.

Four places the expert’s record argues with her own report

Four findings from one expert’s record, each tied to its page before the deposition.

She said the model can’t apply to retail

Retained by a defendant in a 2019 deposition, she testified that a single regression cannot capture pass-through across stores. Paragraph 47 of this report applies one regression to all retail purchasers.

Her own paper puts pass-through at 38% to 57%

This report assumes 100%. At her published upper bound, $54.0M becomes $30.8M; at 38%, $20.5M. A court excluded the same untested step in 2021.

A 14-month benchmark against her own 24-month standard

She told a 2021 jury she would not trust less than twenty-four months of clean data. In 2024 a court admitted her benchmark because it used 26 months.

Two depositions left off her list

Her report lists 14 testimonies in the last 4 years, and the record shows 16. Both missing ones are depositions, and both are now a chapter of the cross.

The analyst confirms, the associate builds and only the partner signs

Agents find, read and propose. Four people hold four different decisions.

Litigation research analyst

Sees: Proposed pairs with both passages, and transcripts waiting to be bought
Signs: Confirms or dismisses each pair with a reason, and approves purchases up to $500

Trial associate

Sees: The dossier, the confirmed pairs and the outline’s chapters
Signs: Adds confirmed pairs to the cross and drafts the motion outline

Trial partner

Sees: The outline beside the expert’s own numbers and the rulings on her methods
Signs: Signs the cross outline, and decides on a motion to exclude and on retaining an expert

Director of research services

Sees: Sources and their health, budgets, rules and retention
Signs: Changes rules and roles, each change logged, and makes no case decisions

Around the dossier

Seven more screens behind the dossier, from purchase to sealed trail

Views the trial team opens straight from the dossier.

Testimony details over the prior testimony list: a freight deposition not on her disclosed list, 228 pages, with a button to approve the $340 purchase — **A deposition left off her list**The earlier unlisted deposition opens with its 228 pages and the positions taken. Its transcript sells for $340, and the research analyst approves the purchase.

Order page 22 opened from its citation: the court excluded one average pass-through rate applied across retailers of every size — **The exclusion, at its page**The 2021 order opens at page 22, the lines that excluded her pass-through opinion highlighted and quoted word for word.

Page 14 of a 2022 paper opened over the positions grid: pass-through of 38% to 57% in concentrated grocery markets, highlighted — **Her own 38% to 57%**Page 14 of her 2022 paper, the lines on concentrated grocery markets highlighted, with who confirmed the quote and a button to copy the citation.

Two dismissed contradiction pairs, market definition at 77% and interest rate at 76% confidence, each with the analyst’s reason for dismissing it — **Two pairs dismissed, with reasons**Market definition and the interest rate were proposed and dismissed. Each keeps the analyst’s reason: a different product in one, a rate set by statute in the other.

Re-check run over the contradictions list: report re-read, 38 prior matters compared, 1,214 quotes re-run, and no new pair found — **A re-check that finds nothing new**The report re-read, 38 prior matters compared and 1,214 quotes re-run: the same 5 pairs, and nothing new for the analyst to decide.

Not your decision message over the cross-examination outline: the trial associate cannot sign it, and only the trial partner can — **A signature only the partner holds**The trial associate tries to sign and is stopped. Research, the outline and the decision stay with different people.

Audit trail filtered to people: research opened, a $1,360 transcript purchase approved, contradictions confirmed and held, and a $500 limit set — **Who did what, sealed**The people’s side of the trail: research opened, 4 transcripts bought for $1,360, pairs confirmed, held and added, and the purchase limit set at $500.

Dockets, a transcript exchange and a journals index behind one record

Each source is connected once by the director of research services.

Court records and docketsWhere each prior testimony and each challenge to her methods first shows up

Transcript exchangeDeposition and trial transcripts, bought only with the analyst’s approval

Journals indexHer papers, 22 of 22 retrieved, each position quoted from its page

The firm’s prior mattersEarlier work that touched the same expert, with ethical walls applied

Her CV and reportUploaded when the report is served, for the identity check and the paragraphs each pair cites

Expert witness research, questioned before the deposition

What is expert witness research?

Expert witness research gathers what an opposing expert has said before: depositions, trial testimony, papers, and what courts ruled about the methods. This solution reads all of it, keeps each position as a verbatim quote with its pin cite, and pairs the expert’s earlier words with the report served in your case.

How does it know a record belongs to the same expert?

A record is kept only when two identifiers match, such as the CV, the firm, the degree or a prior caption. Records of a namesake are set aside and listed with the reason, so another person’s testimony stays out of the dossier.

Does it decide which statements are contradictions?

It proposes pairs with a strength and a confidence, and looks for the expert’s own explanation of the change. A research analyst confirms or dismisses each pair with a reason, and only confirmed pairs reach the trial team. It does not say the expert lied.

Can it prepare a Daubert motion?

It reads each prior challenge to the expert, records the outcome and the court’s words, and drafts a motion outline from confirmed material only. The trial partner decides whether to file, and no agent files anything.

Who approves transcript purchases?

The research analyst approves each purchase within the firm’s limit, and the director of research services approves anything above it. Agents do not buy on their own, and each purchase is kept in the sealed audit trail.

How is the research protected?

Access is limited to the matter team with ethical walls honored, each page is marked attorney work product, and no client’s material trains a model. Transcripts bought under a protective order are deleted at the end of the case.

Litigation & Dispute Resolution