Conn. Practice Book § 13-4 (2026)

Sec. 13-4 incurred for travel to and from the place of deposi- tion and lodging, if necessary. If the parties are unable to agree on the fees and expenses due under this subsection, the amount shall be set by the judicial authority, upon motion. (e) If any party expects to call as an expert witness at trial any person previously disclosed by any other party under subsection (b) hereof, the newly disclosing party shall file a notice of disclosure: (1) stating that the party adopts all or a specified part of the expert disclosure already on file; and (2) disclosing any other expert opinions to which the witness is expected to testify and the substance of the grounds for any such expert opinion. Such notice shall be filed within the time parameters set forth in subsection (g). (f) A party may discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who had been retained or spe- cially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial only as provided in Section 13-11 or upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means. (g) Unless otherwise ordered by the judicial authority, or otherwise agreed by the parties, the following schedule shall govern the expert discov- ery required under subsections (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this section. (1) Within 120 days after the return date of any civil action, or at such other time as the parties may agree or as the court may order, the parties shall submit to the court for its approval a pro- posed Schedule for Expert Discovery, which, upon approval by the court, shall govern the timing of expert discovery in the case. This schedule shall be submitted on a ‘‘Schedule for Expert Dis- covery’’ form prescribed by the Office of the Chief Court Administrator. The deadlines proposed by the parties shall be realistic and reasonable, tak- ing into account the nature and relative complexity of the case, the need for predicate discovery and the estimated time until the case may be exposed for trial. If the parties are unable to agree on dis- covery deadlines, they shall so indicate on the proposed Schedule for Expert Discovery, in which event the court shall convene a scheduling confer- ence to set those deadlines. (2) If a party is added or appears in a case after the proposed Schedule for Expert Discovery is filed, then an amended proposed Schedule for Expert Discovery shall be prepared and filed for approval by the court within sixty days after such new party appears, or at such other time as the court may order. 226 (3) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, dis- closure of any expert witness under subsection (e) hereof shall be made within thirty days of the event giving rise to the need for that party to adopt the expert disclosure as its own (e.g., the with- drawal or dismissal of the party originally disclos- ing the expert). (4) The parties, by agreement, may modify the approved Schedule for Expert Discovery or any other time limitation under this section so long as the modifications do not interfere with an assigned trial date. A party who wishes to modify the approved Schedule for Expert Discovery or other time limitation under this section without agree- ment of the parties may file a motion for modifica- tion with the court stating the reasons therefor. Said motion shall be granted if: (A) the requested modification will not cause undue prejudice to any other party; (B) the requested modification will not cause undue interference with the trial schedule in the case; and (C) the need for the requested modification was not caused by bad faith delay of disclosure by the party seeking modification. (h) A judicial authority may, after a hearing, impose sanctions on a party for failure to comply with the requirements of this section. An order precluding the testimony of an expert witness may be entered only upon a finding that: (1) the sanc- tion of preclusion, including any consequence thereof on the sanctioned party’s ability to prose- cute or to defend the case, is proportional to the noncompliance at issue, and (2) the noncompli- ance at issue cannot adequately be addressed by a less severe sanction or combination of sanc- tions. (i) The revisions to this rule adopted by the judges of the Superior Court in June, 2008, effec- tive on January 1, 2009, and the revisions to this rule adopted by the judges of the Superior Court in June, 2009, and March, 2010, shall apply to cases commenced on or after January 1, 2009. The version of this rule in effect on December 31, 2008, shall apply to cases commenced on or before that date. (P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 220.) (Amended June 30, 2008, to take effect Jan. 1, 2009; amended June 22, 2009, to take effect Sept. 1, 2009; amended June 21, 2010, to take effect Jan. 1, 2011; amended June 15, 2012, to take effect Jan. 1, 2013; amended June 24, 2016, to take effect Jan. 1, 2017.)