defendant’s testifying medical expert). The more difficult issue is what limitation, if any, should be placed upon the party who is presenting and questioning his adversary’s former expert. In other words, may the party calling Ms opponent’s prior expert, the so-called “Red Rover” witness, inquire regarding the original retention. For us, the issue is one of first impression. A few New Jersey-eases have addressed the question, either directly or obliquely, and they have come to different conclusions. Compare Moore v. Kantha, 312 N.J.Super. 365, 377-78, 711 A.2d 967 (App.Div.1998) (finding original retention properly concealed from jury where “exceptional circumstances” justified partial use of adversary’s expert’s deposition), and Cogdell, supra, 220 N.J.Super. at 336-37, 531 A.2d 1379 (<HOLDING>), with Graham, supra, 126 N.J. at 372, 599 A.2d
holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm holding jury should have opportunity to consider fact that expert was imtially consulted by opposing party in judging experts credibility holding that fire expert should not have been sequestered where opposing expert testified to facts and theories not revealed prior to trial holding that the patientphysician privilege does not prevent testimony by a physician as to the fact that he was consulted by a patient on a certain date holding that the district court should have excluded expert testimony in an excessive force case where the expert testified that defendants conduct was not justified or warranted under the circumstances and totally improper noting that the experts opinions merely told the jury what result to reach