Q&A: Should a plaintiff attorney who practices civil litigation in New York submit a copy of the economist's damages report, or just a summary?

The Tinari Brief – a continuing series

Covering trends, research and recent cases involving damages issues.

Case strategy extends from the first bit of discovery all the way to trial presentation. Besides mounting proofs of liability, plaintiff attorneys need to consider the extent of damages and how they will be presented. A 30-01D filing requires information about the damages expert's background and experience, and a description of the content of his or her proposed testimony. Some attorneys prefer to keep the information provided to the barest minimum, while others prefer to submit their expert's full damages report to their adversary and the court.

What are the advantages of each strategy? The main advantage of the minimalist approach is that very little ammunition is provided to the defense for potential cross-examination. In contrast, the major advantage of the full-report strategy is that the defense will be able to see the basis for the opinion and the exact calculations. Such a report, if credible and consistent with the known facts, could lead to quicker resolution of the claim. It has been our experience in recent years that more attorneys have been choosing the latter approach. Because the reports that the Tinari Economics Group writes are thorough and spell out the bases and assumptions for all calculations, we believe that exchange of the reports enhances the likelihood of a fair and reasonable settlement.

Note: If you have a question regarding damages issues, and you believe an answer would be helpful to litigation attorneys generally, please email the question to

return