in stewart about terminal brain cancer and had to quit the litigation he since passed on to finish here in this matter has always been the plaintiff a well respected doctor dentistry family man lifelong hunter doing well financially once the once the medium in cut off the bone we had our experts say by author david i'm a scientist and i cannot confine myself in my opinion these grammar so if i am not allowed to for instance talk about my testing methodology or talk about this he do did he do the mathematical model he did not do mathematical modeling is so he didn't say i agree dr wright's mathematical model and i've done the work myself and here it is what he said was i have looked at dr ra methodology that is a fair methodology but it is not my methodology he had a completely different methodology to come to the same conclusion that dr wright what degree was a mathematical modeling approach versus more physical test and based approach  was adopted for instance by the defendant's expert nobody said he did not i thought it said he disagreed with the first doctor that is incorrect much was played up of a tiny snippet of a seven and one half hour grueling deposition was there was a portion of and they had some discrepancies in my argument here is that any two independent scientists approaching the same question independently will necessarily have some discrepancies but over and over again in his deposition dr tell carr said scientist a scientist man to man and figure out some of the nuances of what he's saying i just don't understand this particular sect it's out of my understanding written briefs and you can correct me on this isn't your it lost control i find it accidentally lost control by virtue of a bunch of other scientific criteria but some super some reason he lost control with his hands and then in great scientific detail and basically only one scenario  i've got to show that the injury was caused proximately by defective condition of the bone recently dissipated use he says look i find a probably been done and said it all more probably not reasonably scientific certainty something happened with the doctor lost such a good guy but they say i mean that dr bowles alfred bowles there by mechanical engineering expert has been through this process absolutely says there's one way this occurs he had to intend to put his head in the pocket a complied with my request and got him an expert that were sensuous say the same thing that the expert that you have when it's ready for trial now would say we don't want to postpone this by introducing new theories  to answer your question this wasn't a situation where a put out this report and we didn't have any more time i spring this new guy with new theories which the work that we say we didn't bother to scope these weren't new theories but even if they were just which i put in the work we had a situation the simplest way to look at this is that we have an expert who admitted that he could not testify that there was a recently anticipated use of the product of unless he consider this propensity o character evidence is that simple he admitted that now the plaintiffs say well he said he relied on a number of other things as well we don't dispute that begin rely on a number of other different things but those things were not that kind of demonstrates the difference between what dr ray said what dr phil course a doctor raises biomechanical expert offered opinions about the movement of the human body ok he testified that we thought this was not possible could not essentially i'm sorry ray sensually puts the head inside the string as well as through emotional movement of the body you know the new expert comes in and says the body to move the boat moved entirely different theory entirely as i saw that about to have a piece but saw it as someone ancillary to the principal pain but more to the point that not being it was going beyond the scope if you will of the first expert testimony of what i thought was the heart of her you know striking not just the issue no fact you're about have it is but i take what you say is being the case and we look at it you know in a deposition i just want to make sure i understood it and you've done a good job of explaining it to where i can understand what you say in fact it is as far as what the the court actually ruled she will on both grounds and i think if you take a look at the ruling on the motion f and second that it was beyond that that it was beyond the scope of the prior expert's report  expert they're supposed to disclose that up front at the beginning and what what the palace are doing here is effectively blaming the court and saying it was the court's fault because they didn't give me enough guidance so you tell me what i was supposed to did but it's a substitute expert a substitute expert at first we have to assume that everything the did say in allowing such the court's order state that she made it very clear to all the parties and counsel that they that basically that there was not going to be any substantial revisions or a substantial additions or of revisions to the prior opinions have been given by the expert she listened number of things that she stated to appellate counsel and the pelleas counsel with regard to this now it's as appellant counsel points out it's not in any written order she says i virtually gave these directives but much to my point though is that she doesn't have to give any directives and we're going to require all federal judges in the federal district courts and every time there's a substitute expert that they have to issue an order to specifically states what the what the substitute expert is permitted to say may not be where you know they wait to the last minute to get an expert of whatever whatever whatever so frankly to me would not be unreasonable that there was some kind of written parameters and all that but putting aside people you know who could do that but putting that aside he didn't or you know he couldn't find one and all that there is a little hard to me i read this you know internal what the judge said and meant no let me you know see the say after the fact for example there's a case out of puerto rico where it is expected that the scope of the new expert's report will be addressed after that report comes out that you know that the party that's that is the nonmoving that situation exist at the time you had to have another expert right now if you did it very early on for extension deposition i would be less stringent rules which one sits on the end of the i guess the president scale because of the here the different work that was done and the amount of work that was done they oppose those moves it was discovery reopened and just to the extent that we took the were they were prepared to go to trial the other issue i want to raise is the issue on the on the zone of danger argument that was raised by essentially what they're saying is that the two experts testimony is the same and it's as if they can just say that it was an accident but that is the fishes but that's similar enough and they are using the zone of danger in the line obvious obvious danger no you should not do that those are not going those are not going to be reasonably anticipated he says and so far as an example of those types of cases there's another