Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(v) Disclosure
Prior expert-witness engagements
This page discloses the complete history of expert-witness engagements
undertaken by Kevin T. Luddy / contrarianAI in the four years preceding
the date noted below. It is maintained as a permanent, publicly-auditable
record referenced by Curriculum Vitae Section 4.
Last updated: 2026-10-13. Refreshed on each new retention within 5 business days.
Engagement history
2026-10 — Consulting expert (non-testifying), Preliminary Case Assessment
- Case: Identification withheld while the matter is pending, consistent with the client work-product convention applied to counsel identity throughout this page. The entry will be completed when the matter concludes.
- Role: Consulting expert (non-testifying). No expert testimony delivered.
- Side: Plaintiff-side.
- Retention date: 2026-10-03.
- Retaining counsel: Plaintiff-side counsel team (identity withheld under client work-product norms).
- Deliverable: Preliminary Case Assessment delivered 2026-10-09. Consulting-expert product; not filed publicly.
- Testimony: None. No deposition. No trial testimony.
- Rule 702 / Daubert challenges: None raised. No expert testimony to challenge.
- Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(v) trigger: No. Consulting-only engagement with no testimony delivered does not trigger the disclosure requirement. This entry is published above the requirement so the engagement count on this page is complete.
- Matter status: Pending as of the date above.
2026-08 — Consulting expert (non-testifying), Preliminary Case Assessment
- Case: Mettler et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-07825, N.D. Ill.
- Role: Consulting expert (non-testifying). No expert testimony delivered.
- Side: Plaintiff-side.
- Retention date: 2026-08-02.
- Retaining counsel: Plaintiff-side counsel team (identity withheld under client work-product norms).
- Deliverable: Preliminary Case Assessment covering the case-shape read of the public record, discovery-target list, doctrinal frame analysis, and independent-verifier declaration template. Consulting-expert product; not filed publicly.
- Testimony: None. No deposition. No trial testimony.
- Rule 702 / Daubert challenges: None raised. No expert testimony to challenge.
- Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(v) trigger: No. Consulting-only engagement with no testimony delivered does not trigger the disclosure requirement.
- Matter status: Voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on 2026-08-06 following independent case-strength assessment.
Disclosure posture (retaining counsel):
Prior testimony history remains empty pending a first testifying-expert designation. Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(v) requires disclosure of prior testimony, not of prior consulting engagements or prior retentions absent testimony. The methodology stack is the credential, not the historical testifying-case count: deterministic classical statistics applied to AI decision-log data, independent-verifier declaration, distinct model family, and distinct retention pipeline, all designed to survive the higher post-Kohls Rule 702 admissibility bar. The above consulting engagement is disclosed voluntarily for transparency; nothing about the engagement was filed on the public docket beyond the plaintiffs' own dismissal.
Format when engagements begin
Each future engagement will be listed in this section with the following
fields, in reverse-chronological order:
- Case caption + court + docket number
- Retention date + role (consulting expert / testifying expert)
- Retaining party + counsel
- Side (plaintiff or defense)
- Testimony delivered (deposition date, trial date) if any
- Result of Rule 702 / Daubert challenges if raised
Where a protective order restricts publication, only publicly-disclosable
fields will appear. Retaining counsel may request additional restriction
before publication.
Why this page exists
Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(v) disclosure is one of the six required elements of an
expert-witness disclosure under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Most experts include the list only in the specific expert report for a
given case, updated per-matter. Publishing it as a standing public page:
- Prevents defense counsel from arguing the disclosure was late, incomplete, or reconstructed for a specific matter.
- Removes any incentive to game the list per-matter (add-only, permanent record).
- Reads honestly on Rule 702-vulnerability: the current absence of prior testimony is disclosed voluntarily rather than surfaced by defense.
- Maintains a single canonical URL that CVs, engagement letters, and expert reports can reference.