CIVIL PROCEDURE — hearings — where additional issue arises during cross-examination — where plaintiff seeks to obtain additional expert evidence mid-hearing — where additional evidence would occasion delay — whether proceedings could conclude in 2026 — adjournment allowed — whether plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist should participate in expert psychiatric conclave — he should not
Quick Take
1A mid-hearing adjournment to obtain additional expert evidence may be granted where the need for that evidence emerged unexpectedly during cross-examination, the proceedings can still conclude within the same law term, and the prejudice to the opposing parties is not irremediable.
2A treating expert should not be added to an expert conclave where the conclave addresses a narrow identified issue that can be resolved by the parties' independent experts, and where adding the treater risks multiplying rather than reducing the issues in dispute.
3Adverse consequences of a party's own forensic decisions — such as not including a treating expert in an earlier conclave or not providing the joint report for comment — are not to be visited upon the opposing parties.
