Part 10A: The Other Expert - How a Damages Expert Evaluates the Opposition
By the time the opposing expert's report arrives, a significant amount of work has already been done on your side of the case. The data has been gathered, the methodology has been selected, the model has been built, and the expert report has been served. Now the focus shifts.
Understanding what the other side's expert has done, and where their analysis is strong or vulnerable, is one of the most important parts of the entire engagement.
Plaintiff or Defense: A Different Starting Point
Which side of the case you are on shapes how this process plays out.
On the plaintiff's side, the damages expert has typically already built and presented an affirmative analysis. When the defense expert's initial report or rebuttal report arrives, the focus is on understanding how the other side has responded, where they have challenged the methodology or assumptions, and how to address those challenges effectively at trial.
On the defense side, the dynamic is often different. In many cases the defense expert's primary job is to evaluate the plaintiff's damages analysis rather than build their own independent one. That means the opposing plaintiff expert's report is not in response to your work. It is the starting point for your engagement entirely. The evaluation has to be thorough enough to stand on its own as the foundation for direct examination, cross examination, and for a rebuttal report/or testimony ultimately at trial.
What We Look For
When we receive the opposing expert's report, the first thing we do is read it carefully and completely. We try to understand what they did, how they did it, and what conclusions they reached before we evaluate any of it.
From there, our evaluation focuses on a few key areas. Does the methodology reflect generally accepted practice in the field? Are the assumptions clearly disclosed and adequately supported? Does the analysis actually support the conclusions, or are there gaps in the chain of reasoning? Are there math errors or errors in the mechanics of the model? And are there areas where the opposing expert has strayed outside their area of expertise or offered opinions that go beyond what a damages expert is qualified to say? Do their conclusions answer the questions?
We approach this evaluation the same way we would expect someone to approach evaluating our work: objectively, thoroughly, and with an eye toward what the evidence and analysis actually supports.
The Importance of Objectivity
It is worth saying directly: the goal of evaluating the opposing expert's work is not to find something wrong with it at all costs. Sometimes the opposing expert has done solid work, and the honest assessment is that their analysis is reasonable even if it reaches a different conclusion than ours.
That kind of objectivity is not just an ethical obligation. It is a practical one. An expert who overstates the weaknesses in the opposing analysis, or who raises objections that do not hold up under scrutiny, damages their own credibility in the process. The most effective critique of an opposing analysis is one that is measured, well supported, and focused on the issues that genuinely matter.
How This Feeds Into the Rest of the Case
The evaluation of the opposing expert's work feeds directly into what comes next. It shapes the rebuttal report, which we will cover in Part 10B. It informs the cross examination questions that counsel will use at trial. And it helps the damages expert anticipate the challenges their own analysis will face and make sure they are prepared to address them.
Up next: With both analyses on the table, the focus shifts to getting ready for trial. In Part 11 we will cover how a damages expert helps counsel draft direct and cross examination questions and why that collaboration matters.