Maryland Expert Witness Rules: What Litigators Need to Know

Expert witness practice in Maryland is governed by a combination of state court rules, evidentiary standards, and procedural requirements that place a premium on early disclosure, scientific reliability, and clarity of opinion. Given the role of expert testimony in high-stakes litigation—particularly in medical malpractice, product liability, and professional negligence cases—understanding Maryland’s framework is essential for avoiding preclusion and maximizing evidentiary impact.

Designation Requirements

Maryland does not require a formal “designation” of experts by motion. Instead, expert identification is accomplished through discovery disclosures, including answers to interrogatories and pretrial disclosures governed by the Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under Md. Rule 2-402(g) and Rule 2-403, a party must disclose:

• The identity of any person expected to be called as an expert witness
• The subject matter of expected testimony
• The substance and basis of the expert’s opinions
• The grounds for those opinions

This is typically done through a standard set of interrogatories, especially Interrogatory 18, which explicitly requests identification of expert witnesses. Maryland courts may exclude experts not properly disclosed within discovery deadlines, especially where failure to disclose causes unfair surprise or prejudice.

Expert Disclosure Process

Expert disclosures in Maryland follow a two-tiered approach, depending on the role and timing of the expert’s involvement. Formal written reports are not automatically required unless ordered by the court or voluntarily provided.

Discovery responses must include:

• The expert’s name, background, and qualifications
• A summary of opinions and conclusions
• A statement of the basis for each opinion
• A list of documents or data relied upon

In medical malpractice cases, disclosure rules are stricter. Plaintiffs must file a Certificate of a Qualified Expert and a Report of the Expert under Md. Code, Courts & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-04(b). These must be submitted to the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (HCADRO) as a condition of pursuing a malpractice claim in court.

Failure to meet these procedural prerequisites results in dismissal with prejudice.

Required Declarations

Maryland does not impose a blanket requirement for expert declarations or affidavits. However, such declarations become essential during summary judgment proceedings or Daubert-like challenges to admissibility. Courts require an expert’s sworn statement to establish the reliability and relevance of the opinions being offered.

For malpractice claims, the Certificate of a Qualified Expert serves a functionally equivalent purpose. This document, signed under oath, must state that the defendant's conduct departed from accepted standards of care and caused injury.

The expert must also meet qualification requirements, including clinical practice or teaching experience in the same or related field within five years prior to the alleged malpractice.

Fees and Compensation

There are no statutory limits on expert witness fees in Maryland. Compensation is typically negotiated between the expert and retaining counsel. However, ethical and procedural constraints apply.

When a party seeks to depose the opposing party’s expert, that party must pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent preparing and testifying. This is consistent with Md. Rule 2-402(g) and mirrors federal practice under FRCP 26(b)(4)(E). Disputes over unreasonable fees may be resolved by motion before the court.

Discovery Scope and Limitations

Maryland permits broad expert discovery, but with important protections in place. Under Rule 2-402(g):

• Testifying experts are subject to discovery by interrogatory and deposition
• Parties may obtain a summary of opinions, qualifications, data relied upon, and compensation arrangements
• Consulting experts not expected to testify are generally shielded from discovery

Notably, draft expert reports and attorney-expert communications are not explicitly protected under Maryland’s rules, though courts often invoke work-product doctrine to prevent disclosure absent good cause. Practitioners must tread carefully when sharing information with experts that could later be discoverable.

Admissibility Standards

Maryland applies a Daubert-style standard following the 2019 decision in Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020), which replaced the former Frye-Reed standard. The court adopted Rule 5-702 as the controlling test for admissibility of expert testimony, focusing on the following criteria:

1. Whether the expert is qualified
2. Whether the testimony will help the trier of fact understand the evidence
3. Whether the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
4. Whether the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
5. Whether the expert has reliably applied those methods to the facts of the case

This transition reflects a broader judicial emphasis on methodological rigor and evidentiary reliability, especially in scientific and technical fields. Judges are now tasked with robust gatekeeping responsibilities, including pretrial hearings to assess admissibility.

Key Deadlines & Strategy Notes

Deadlines for expert disclosure in Maryland are primarily set by the Scheduling Order issued by the court in each case. While timelines may vary by jurisdiction and complexity, the following benchmarks are typical:

• Expert designations: Often due 90–120 days before trial
• Opposing expert disclosures: 30–60 days after initial expert designation
• Motions in limine to exclude experts: Must be filed by deadline set in scheduling order

In malpractice litigation, the Certificate of Qualified Expert must be filed within 90 days of the defendant's answer in HCADRO. Courts strictly enforce this deadline, and motions to extend must be supported by good cause.

Strategically, attorneys should engage experts early and prepare them for Daubert-style scrutiny, especially in cases involving novel science or controversial methodologies. The failure to establish foundational reliability can result in exclusion even if the expert is otherwise qualified.

State-Specific Statutes & Local Rules

• Md. Rule 2-402(g): Governs expert discovery and disclosures
• Md. Rule 2-504.3: Requires scheduling orders in civil cases, which set disclosure deadlines
• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-04(b): Certificate of Qualified Expert in medical malpractice
• Rule 5-702, Md. Rules of Evidence: Controls expert witness admissibility
• Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020): Maryland’s leading Daubert case

Practitioners should also be aware of local discovery guidelines issued by Maryland’s circuit courts, particularly in Baltimore City, Montgomery County, and Prince George’s County, which may impose additional formatting or procedural rules.