Opinion ID: 1537146
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Robert Moore, Sr.

Text: The purpose of requiring that a party identify experts that it intends to call at trial is to give notice, so that the opposing party has an opportunity to examine the expert's background and opinion prior to trial. Abbey v. Jackson, 483 A.2d 330, 335 (D.C.1984). Civil Rule 26(b)(4) allows a party to seek facts and opinions held by an expert that were acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 26(b)(4). Here, appellants complain that because Moore was not identified as an expert in the association's pretrial statement, they were denied the opportunity to prepare to cross-examine Moore at trial. But the judge remedied this problem at the end of trial by allowing appellants' counsel to re-open discovery to depose the witness and call additional experts, an opportunity that counsel did not seize. [24] Moreover, although the trial court considered Moore's testimony along with that of appellant's expert, Norman Eule, on the question of the association's readiness to purchase the property, it is not clear that the opinion Moore presented at trial was acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation. [25] But even if we assume that his testimony was erroneously admitted and considered as expert opinion, we see no abuse of discretion on the part of the judge, who, as noted, afforded counsel an opportunity to re-open discovery in order to depose Moore and call additional experts. See Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 361 (D.C.1979) (noting that an inherent part of an appellate determination that trial court has abused discretion is finding of prejudice warranting reversal).