What a Maritime Expert Report Should Contain

An expert report is the one document in a case that the other side will read more carefully than you do. Every sentence is a potential deposition question. Every missing source is a potential Daubert argument. A good maritime report is built with that reader in mind.

What the rule requires

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), a retained testifying expert's report must include:

• A complete statement of all opinions and the basis and reasons for them
• The facts or data considered in forming them
• Any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them
• The expert's qualifications, including publications from the previous ten years
• A list of cases from the previous four years in which he testified at trial or by deposition
• A statement of his compensation

State courts set their own rules, and some are lighter. Counsel should check the forum.

How I organize one

The structure that works best is the one a juror could follow without help.

1. Assignment. What I was asked to do, in one or two sentences.
2. Qualifications. Short, relevant, with the full CV attached.
3. Materials reviewed. A complete list, so nobody can say I ignored something.
4. Background. The vessel, the people, the operation, explained for someone who has never been aboard.
5. Timeline. What happened, built from the records, with sources for each entry.
6. Standards. The rules, regulations, industry references, and company procedures that applied.
7. Analysis. Each opinion, the facts behind it, and why the conduct did or did not meet the standard.
8. Opinions. Numbered, short, and stated plainly.

What makes a report strong

• Sources for every fact. Bates numbers, page and line from depositions, log entries by date and time.
• Standards that are named. A specific rule or procedure, not "good seamanship" in the abstract.
• Opinions inside the expert's field. No medicine, engineering, or legal conclusions from an operations expert.
• Honesty about bad facts. Addressing what cuts the other way, rather than leaving it for cross-examination.
• Plain language. Technical terms explained the first time they appear.

What opposing counsel looks for

• Materials that were available but not reviewed
• Opinions with no named standard behind them
• Facts stated without a source
• Language that sounds like advocacy
• Opinions that drift outside the expert's experience
• Contradictions with the expert's past reports, testimony, or published writing

That last point is a good reason for an expert to be careful about everything he publishes, including articles like this one.

A practical note on timing

A strong report needs the full record and time to read it. Experts brought in a week before the disclosure deadline with half the documents produce weaker reports, no matter how qualified they are. Bring the expert in early, send the file, and leave room for questions.

About the author

Captain Mitchell S. Stoller is a Master Mariner Unlimited, former Exxon tanker master, and former Los Angeles Harbor pilot. About Captain Stoller