ISSUE
Whether a private expert’s evaluation is admissible in court when the opposing party refuses to participate or objects to the report.
DISCUSSION
Hiring a private expert of a party’s own choice is governed by Minn. R. Evid. 706, which allows a party to retain. Refusal to admit an expert’s report is within the court’s discretion. See Sheeran v. Sheeran, 401 N.W.2d 111, 116 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (citing Peterson v. Peterson, 408 N.W.2d 901, 904 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)). However, the expert’s report in P case will likely be admitted into evidence in order to modify his parenting-time. Courts decide whether to admit or exclude expert reports or testimony into evidence for various reasons. In Peterson, the court refused to admit father’s expert’s testimony from his custody evaluation. Peterson, 408 N.W.2d at 904. The Court excluded the evidence because “of the untimeliness of the request.” Id. The father “notified the court of the witness’s testimony only four days prior to the trial in a case which had been ongoing for three years.” Id. The Court also noted that the testimony lacked foundation because mother and daughter were not interviewed by father’s expert, and thus, the recommendation was based primarily off father’s statements. Id. …show more content…
The opposing party is aware that a private expert was retained through a letter asking if the opposing party would participate. The letter asked for a response within five (5) days if they agreed to participate and no response deemed no participation. P will need to notify the court he used a private evaluator in a timely manner before the hearing date. Moreover, in Peterson, lack of foundation was due to the private expert never interviewing the child or mother. However, in the present case, P has no ability to interview the opposing party because mother refuses to participate in the evaluation. The Court in Peterson did not specify whether mother and child refused to