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: 2026-07-30. Refreshed on each new retention within 5 business days.
Status as of 2026-07-30:
No prior expert-witness engagements have been undertaken in the four years
preceding this date. Prior testimony history is empty. First plaintiff-side
retention conversations are in active scoping as of Q3 2026.
Disclosure posture (retaining counsel):
The absence of prior expert testimony is disclosed and available for
cross-examination. Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(v) requires disclosure of prior
testimony, not a minimum quantum of prior experience. The methodology
stack is the credential, not the historical case-count: deterministic
classical statistics applied to AI decision-log data, independent-verifier
declaration, distinct model family, distinct retention pipeline, all
designed to survive the higher post-Kohls Rule 702 admissibility bar
before ever applied to a live matter.
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.