Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-08017/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-08017-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kristen Burnham, individually and as 

representative of the estate of Caroline 

Burnham, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

United States of America, 

Defendant.

No. CV07-8017-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion for new trial. Doc. 195. For the reasons that follow, 

the motion will be denied. 

 Plaintiff again complains that the Court erred in excluding the expert testimony of 

Anselmo Nagera. The Court explained its reasons for excluding his testimony, in detail, 

on July 20, 2009. See Doc. 118 at 8-10. Mr. Nagera was not timely disclosed as an 

initial expert by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s subsequent attempt to disclose him as a rebuttal 

expert was inappropriate for reasons explained in the Court’s previous order. Doc. 118. 

The Court’s order was not set aside by the Ninth Circuit on appeal, and other courts have 

agreed with the conclusion. See, e.g., Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 

189 F.R.D. 410, 416 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (“to now allow Mr. Kern to testify on direct 

examination to matters deliberately ignored in his Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report would simply 

encourage litigants to evade the expert-disclosure rules. It would disrupt the orderly 

process of trial preparation to require a new round of expert reports and a new round of 

expert depositions”); see also Crowley v. Chait, 322 F. Supp. 2d 530, 551 (D. N.J. 2004) 

Case 2:07-cv-08017-DGC Document 197 Filed 10/20/11 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(an expert’s rebuttal report “is not an opportunity for the correction of any oversights in 

the plaintiff’s case in chief.”). 

 Plaintiff’s motion takes issue with factual findings made by the Court after trial. 

Such disagreement does not provide a basis for a new trial. 

 Plaintiff asks the Court to order post-trial mediation. Given that Defendant 

prevailed at trial, the Court sees no basis for such an order. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial (Doc. 195) is denied. 

 Dated this 20th day of October, 2011. 

Case 2:07-cv-08017-DGC Document 197 Filed 10/20/11 Page 2 of 2