Frequently Asked Questions

General Questions

There are a great number of ways that JuriLytics peer reviews can make a difference in your cases. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Defend against a motion to exclude your expert
  • Controvert your opponent’s expert report(s)
  • Bullet-proof your expert(s) draft report(s)
  • Provide due diligence regarding how well your theory of the case aligns with the relevant, accepted, state-of-the-art science
JuriLytics’ reviewers are the top academic talent in their fields and do not ordinarily (and usually never) testify in court. They represent the mainstream scientific community and are selected on the basis of their reputations for scholarship and distinction in their respective areas of expertise.
JuriLytics’ peer reviewers are provided a copy of an Expert Report (or, as an option for your own expert, a draft) and links to, or hardcopies of, all authority cited in the Report. They are given a template of detailed questions that provide the framework for their Review. Templates are developed for specific scientific fields and, in consultation with the attorneys in the case, are tailored for the specific litigation. The Reviews analyze the methods and principles underlying an expert’s report and considers whether those methods and principles, as well as their application to the instant case, are consistent with the standards in the respective field. Reviewers are not expected to analyze case-specific issues that usually go more towards weight than admissibility.
No. JuriLytics will have access to confidential information and/or draft reports of experts in many cases. JuriLytics is limited to being associated with only one side in any particular litigation.
Our costs depend on the case at hand and the complexity of the expert reports. Prices can start at $5000 per Reviewer. As in scientific peer review, best results are obtained with at least 3 reviewers. Please contact us at 650.273.6476 or to obtain a estimate after a short consultation.

Draft Report Review (DR2)

Your expert just finished the first draft of her report. How can you tell if she overlooked a critical issue or a helpful scientific development? What if the report gets excluded? You hire your experts because they produce excellent work, but they themselves aren not perfect. Catch the errors early, and your clients will thank you for it.

In science, mistakes and oversights are caught by peer review. At JuriLytics, these peers are the best researchers in the field - they may even be cited by your experts. As Nature editor Charles Jennings explained: "My experience as a Nature editor was that most papers went through considerable change (not always voluntary on the authors" part!) between submission and acceptance..." Even Einstein was saved embarrassment after a peer reviewer caught a mistake in his work. Experts who do not want peer review probably should not be working on your cases.

Errors aside, peer review can help you sharpen your own arguments and anticipate your opponent"s arguments. Mock trials help you sharpen your legal arguments. JuriLytics will help you sharpen your science.

Our reviews are not discoverable. We are hired as consulting experts who, under Rule 26(b)(4)(D), are generally protected. Our reviews will be given solely to the attorney, who can then advise the testifying expert based upon received feedback.
We can work with you to generate whatever work product you think will work best for your case. For example, our reviewers can comment directly in your draft reports, or they can provide comments on separate peer review templates.

Final Report Review (FR2)

No matter how distinguished your experts, they cannot provide the answers that judges most want to hear. In short, judges need to know whether the methods and principles underlying the parties’ experts accord with accepted scientific research standards (i.e., Daubert) or whether the scientific opinions or techniques are generally accepted among scientists (Daubert and Frye).

Party experts are hired because their testimony aligns with the litigating position of the party paying the bills. Such experts may or may not be “hired guns,” but many judges believe them to be just that. You could hire 2, 3, 10, or 100 experts and they would not be able to answer the one question that every judge must ask. Are the party experts testifying to good science?

JuriLytics’ reviewers, in contrast, provide an unbiased and neutral assessment of the bases for the disputed scientific opinion as well as what the consensus view is from the respective field.

JuriLytics reviews are not just game changers, they fundamentally alter the playing field.

Using state-of-the-art publication analytics, JuriLytics will compile a list of 15-20 potential scientists/academics that are the most dominant authorities in the relevant technical areas of the target expert report.

Our search methodology factors in a reviewer"s publication count, citation record, and their co-authorship tendencies. As an additional check, JuriLytics will sometimes ask editors of prestigious scientific journals to select candidates to avoid the appearance of selection bias.

Then, JuriLytics vets each candidate for conflicts of interest and suitability. Our methodology is informed by standards used before in other litigation and screens for financial interests, conflicting relationships, prior testimony, and public statements.

Until such time that you cite the Reviews – which presumably would only be when they are favorable to your case – they are not ordinarily discoverable. The Reviews operate as “consulting” expert reports. Thus, under the Federal Rules of Evidence and most State rules, the reports are not discoverable. (Attorneys should check their respective state rules for contrary practice.)

Under virtually all evidence codes, judges are obligated to evaluate the threshold admissibility of proffered expert evidence. Under both Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (and Daubert) and most State codes, this requires judges to either evaluate the reliability and validity of the scientific basis for the evidence or to check whether the scientific opinion or technique offered in court is accepted in the field from which it comes.

JuriLytics reviews can be used by courts to answer the questions that judges are obligated to answer.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence and most State codes, the answer should be YES! You should be able to cite favorable JuriLytics’ Reviews as support for your position that your expert is in line with mainstream standards of good science and is accepted among the scientists in the respective field. In order to support this proposition, JuriLytics Reviews need not be separately “admissible as evidence,” because the rules of evidence do not ordinarily apply to pretrial motions or hearings.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence and most State codes, the answer should be YES! You should be able to cite JuriLytics’ Reviews as support for your position that your opponent’s expert is outside mainstream standards of good science and his or her proposed testimony is not generally accepted among the scientists in the respective field. In order to support this proposition, JuriLytics Reviews need not be separately “admissible as evidence,” because the rules of evidence do not apply to pretrial motions or hearings.
In all likelihood, yes. If JuriLytics’ reviewers are deposed or otherwise subject to discovery, JuriLytics will retain counsel to represent them. It is important to note that the reviewers will have been fully vetted for conflicts, completed their reviews without knowing what side they worked for, and were selected by journal editors that also were blinded to the identity of the JuriLytics client.
Peer reviewers are not testifying experts under FRCP Rule 26. Peer reviews are only used in pretrial motions and hearings to determine admissibility of a testifying expert. When determining preliminary matters, under FRE Rule 104(a), the court is not bound by the rules of evidence. Use of peer reviews in pretrial motions could elicit objection. If judges grant discovery of the peer reviewers, JuriLytics will independently represent them. Of course, attorneys should check their respective state rules for contrary practice when necessary.