Federal Civil Expert Practice: Practical Tips for Challenging and Defending Experts under Rules 26 and 702

Laura Sexton
Elizabeth Curtin
Bridget Wholey
Sarah Kinter
Laura Sexton | Goldman Ismail
Elizabeth Curtin | Goldman Ismail
Bridget Wholey | Goldman Ismail
Sarah Kinter | Goldman Ismail

Live Video-Broadcast: December 11, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

Two Rules, Two Ways to Lose Your Expert

Federal courts are excluding expert testimony for two distinct reasons. The first is procedural: defects under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The second is substantive: defects under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended in 2023. Recent examples include the Fourth Circuit’s August 2026 decision in O’Connor v. Fairfax Taxi and the Second Circuit’s July 2026 decision in Rutledge v. Walgreen Co.

Miss an applicable deadline, and you have a procedural defect. Serve a report short of Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i) through (vi), and you have another. Stretch a supplemental or rebuttal opinion past its appropriate scope, and you have a third. Under amended Rule 702, each requirement of 702(a) through (d) must be met under a “more likely than not” standard. Courts are applying it, from the Fourth Circuit in O’Connor to the Ninth Circuit in Engilis.

You walk out with practical tips from both seats. Serve reports that comply with Rule 26, scope supplemental and rebuttal opinions, and follow Rule 26(b)(4) best practices for expert communications. Take adverse depositions, bring and oppose motions to exclude, and prep witnesses to withstand Rule 702 challenges. This is practitioner judgment for new and seasoned litigators, not a doctrine walk-through.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Deadlines and Disclosure Triggers
    Calendar each applicable deadline and determine when Rule 26 requires a disclosure for retained versus non-retained experts.
  • Rule 26 Report Review
    Review each expert report against the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i) through (vi) from both the serving and the challenging seat.
  • Supplemental and Rebuttal Scope
    Apply the requirements for supplementing expert opinions and test whether each supplemental or rebuttal opinion stays within its appropriate scope.
  • Expert Communications
    Adopt best practices for communicating with your experts under Rule 26(b)(4).
  • The Amended 702 Standard
    Measure each opinion against the requirements of 702(a) through (d) under the “more likely than not” standard, using pre- and post-amendment case law such as O’Connor and Engilis.
  • Depositions, Motions, Witness Prep
    Take adverse depositions, draft Rule 702 motions, and prep witnesses so their opinions withstand Rule 702 challenges.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: December 11, 2026

  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Eastern
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Central
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Mountain
  • 9:00 am – 11:10 am Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Laura Sexton, Partner | Goldman Ismail

Laura is an “emerging leader,” who according to The Legal 500, “plays a key role in high-profile cases.” Laura has defended Fortune 500 corporations in cases involving products liability, mass torts, class actions, antitrust, and other complex commercial disputes. Across these “significant matters,” Laura has had “a high rate of success,” according to The Legal 500.

  • Education & Credentials

Laura earned her J.D. with honors from The University of Chicago Law School, where she was a Kirkland & Ellis Scholar (top 5% of her class), received the Sidley Austin Prize for Excellence in Brief Writing, and served as a member of The University of Chicago Law Review. She received her B.A. with honors from The University of Chicago, where she was named to the Dean’s List. She is admitted to practice in Illinois and before the U.S. District Courts for the Central and Northern Districts of Illinois, and she is a graduate of the International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy at Stanford Law.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Chambers USA ranks Laura as “Up and Coming” in Illinois General Commercial Litigation (2025), and The Legal 500 lists her as a Chicago Elite Recommended Lawyer (2025) and a Key Lawyer in General Commercial Disputes (2023). She has been named to Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Litigators in America (2022–2026) and Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under Hot List (2022–2025), and Super Lawyers has recognized her as an Illinois Super Lawyer (2025) and an Illinois Rising Star (2018–2023). The Federal Bar Association’s Chicago Chapter honored her with its Award for Excellence in Pro Bono Service in 2017.

  • Professional Involvement

Laura writes and speaks on litigation practice, including “Deposition Skills for Young Lawyers” (American Bar Association, Winter 2025) and “Beware of ‘Subject To and Not Waiving’ in Discovery Responses” (American Bar Association, May 21, 2015). She spoke on “The Evolving Landscape of AI Product Liability Claims” for the Practising Law Institute (January 24, 2025). Her writing on working parents includes “Eliminating the Mommy Track” (Above the Law, Dec. 2022). She serves as Co-Chair of the ABA Young Lawyers Subcommittee and sits on the Auxiliary Board of the Chicago Center for Conflict Resolution.

  • Experience

Laura’s expertise is leveraging scientific and technical evidence to win cases. In one federal MDL, Laura drafted Rule 702 motions that resulted in the exclusion of two key plaintiff experts and the eventual dismissal of almost 1,000 cases. In another federal MDL, Laura represented a Fortune 50 company in a products liability case remanded for trial. There, she helped to develop the medical theory that debunked plaintiff’s theory of causation—ultimately resulting in a favorable verdict.

Laura has experience in all aspects of litigation, from brief-writing to fact and expert depositions to trial work. She consistently delivers “excellent work product” (The Legal 500) that is “thorough and well done” (Chambers USA).

 

Elizabeth Curtin, Partner | Goldman Ismail

Elizabeth is a skilled litigator with two decades of experience defending major corporations in high-stakes litigation, including products liability cases, mass torts, and class actions. She has represented clients in a variety of industries—including medical device, pharmaceutical, consumer goods, and chemicals—through all phases of litigation, from pre-litigation risk assessments to trial and resolution. Elizabeth has taken and defended key medical and regulatory expert depositions in multi-plaintiff litigations. She is a go-to lawyer for developing a compelling company story, including by distilling the technical expertise of critical company witnesses into a persuasive and cohesive defense.

  • Education & Credentials

Elizabeth earned her B.S. in Biology from Duke University, with a second major in Environmental Science and Policy, and her J.D. from the University of Virginia.

At the University of Virginia School of Law, Elizabeth was Notes Editor of the Virginia Environmental Law Journal and received the Graduation Award for Excellence in Health Law; at Duke, she was named to the Dean’s List. She is admitted to practice in Illinois and before the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Elizabeth and her team have been described by The Legal 500 as “extraordinary.” “Their commitment to achieving the best results for their clients is unwavering, and their level of preparation stands out even among the many other excellent law firms out there.” – The Legal 500, Chicago Elite (2025).

Lawdragon selected Elizabeth as one of the 500 Leading Litigators in America (2026), and the Lexology Index recognized her for Product Liability Defence in three 2025 guides: Thought Leaders USA, Product Regulation & Liability, and Healthcare & Life Sciences.

  • Professional Involvement

Elizabeth’s enthusiasm for client service extends to her pro-bono practice, which has included obtaining the release of two incarcerated clients under the First Step Act, obtaining asylum for a Central American client who fled persecution in his home country, and representing low-income Chicagoans in adoption cases.

Elizabeth writes and speaks on civil procedure and products litigation. She was a panelist on “Changing the Rules: Perspectives on the Civil Rules Committee” at the GWU Law Bench and Bar Conference (2022) and has co-authored the Illinois CLE chapter “Civil Procedure: Trying the Case – Post-Trial Motions” (2022, 2019, 2012, 2009, 2005). Her other work includes “Sales Reps in the Operating Room: How to Manage the Risks” (Law360, 2023), “Failure to Warn in Drug and Device Cases” (DRI Young Lawyers Primer, 2018), and “The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act Turns Fifteen,” 56 Food & Drug L.J. 351 (2001). She serves on the Board of Directors of Volunteer Legal Services in Chicago and is a member of Friends of Prentice Women’s Hospital.

  • Experience

Prior to joining Goldman Ismail, Elizabeth was a litigation partner at another leading national law firm and completed a federal district court clerkship.

Her clerkship was with Judge Norman K. Moon of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

 

Bridget Wholey, Associate | Goldman Ismail

Bridget represents clients in complex product liability matters at all stages of litigation.

  • Education & Credentials

She earned her B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin and her J.D. summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School.

Her B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin is in Government. She is admitted to practice in Illinois, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and before the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Bridget has earned several awards for her pro bono work, including the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’ Award for Excellence in Pro Bono Service and the Seventh Circuit Bar Association’s Pro Bono and Public Service Award.

She received the Seventh Circuit Bar Association’s Pro Bono and Public Service Award in 2026.

  • Professional Involvement

Bridget also has significant pro bono experience, including briefing and arguing a successful appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

  • Experience

She has served as a core member of trial teams in state and federal court; has taken and defended critical fact and expert witness depositions; and has briefed and argued successful dispositive, evidentiary, and discovery motions across the country. Bridget has particular experience crafting trial narratives, simplifying scientific evidence, and digesting thorny legal issues.

Before joining Goldman Ismail, Bridget clerked for the Honorable Michael Y. Scudder on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and worked as an associate at another national law firm.

 

Sarah Kinter, Associate | Goldman Ismail

Sarah represents clients in high-stakes cases at various stages of litigation.

  • Education & Credentials

Sarah graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University and with high honors from University of Chicago Law School, where she was awarded the Joseph Henry Beale Prize for Legal Research and Writing.

Her Princeton B.A. is in History of Art, and she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. At the University of Chicago Law School, she took part in the Pro Bono Service Initiative. She is admitted to practice in Illinois and before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Super Lawyers has selected Sarah as an Illinois Rising Star (2023–2025).

  • Professional Involvement

Sarah is committed to protecting civil liberties through her pro bono work and has represented clients throughout Illinois and Indiana asserting various claims under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

  • Experience

Her practice focuses on product liability, class actions, and other complex commercial matters where she has taken and defended expert depositions, led briefing of numerous dispositive motions, and prepared key fact and expert witnesses for deposition and trial.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Serving Federal Expert Reports That Comply with the Procedural Requirements of Rule 26 |Laura Sexton and Bridget Wholey | 12:00pm – 1:00pm

You would teach a one-hour federal civil procedure session on expert disclosures, from both the serving and the challenging seat. You would cover applicable deadlines, disclosure requirements for testifying experts and non-retained experts, requirements for supplementation, and the appropriate scope of supplemental and rebuttal opinions. This fits a litigator who would like to learn the procedural requirements of Rule 26 and best practices for expert disclosures.

BREAK |1:00pm – 1:10pm

SESSION 2 – Practical Tips for Bringing and Opposing Federal Motions to Exclude Experts after the 2023 Amendments to Rule 702 | Elizabeth Curtin and Sarah Kinter | 1:10pm – 2:10pm

You would teach a one-hour federal civil class on bringing and opposing Rule 702 motions under the 2023 amendment, from both the proponent’s and the challenger’s seat. You would cover the preponderance standard, the requirements of Rule 702 and its subsections, and recent case law applying the amendments (e.g., the Fourth Circuit’s decision in O’Connor; the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Engilis, etc.). This fits both new and seasoned litigators who would like to understand the impact of the 2023 amendments to Rule 702.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska's recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2.5 General Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via Attorney Submission.
Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

The Federal Bar Association reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney's behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General Minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey's recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law and Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via Attorney Submission. myLawCLE will supply Washington state attorneys with instructions on how to gain credit.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
AI-Augmented Legal Workflows: A Map to Success
AI-Augmented Legal Workflows: A Map to Success Tue, November 10, 2026
Live Webcast