Opinion ID: 171064
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Newman’s Rebuttal Expert

Text: The Newmans argue that the district court improperly denied their motion to present Mr. Coleman, a metallurgical engineer, as an expert rebuttal witness. The Newmans admit that they did not name Mr. Coleman before the deadline for naming expert witnesses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). But they contend their failure to meet the deadline was due to Mr. Scott’s changing his opinion after the deadline from an undetermined cause for the fire to an incendiary cause and due to his deeming the skillets to be material, even though he had previously deemed them to be immaterial in his report. Since State Farm did not supplement Mr. Scott’s report or inform the Newmans that he believed the fire was incendiary, the Newmans contend that State Farm failed to comply with Rule 26(e)’s requirement that the report be supplemented or corrected with accurate information. Further, they contend that an untimely designation would not have prejudiced State Farm, because it would have had ample time to prepare for trial, including taking Mr. Coleman’s deposition. The district court denied the Newmans’ motion for leave to designate Mr. Coleman, out of time, as an expert rebuttal witness. The court found that Mr. Scott’s opinion concerning the melting of the skillets as an incendiary cause for the fire was not materially different from the information disclosed in his report. -19- We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion when excluding Mr. Coleman as an expert rebuttal witness. See Coastal Fuels of P.R., Inc. v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp., 79 F.3d 182, 202 (1st Cir. 1996) (reviewing district court’s exclusion of rebuttal expert witnesses for abuse of discretion). The court set a deadline for experts to be identified, and the Newmans did not present an adequate reason for failing to request Mr. Coleman as a rebuttal expert until the deadline expired. See id. at 203. And, Mr. Scott’s original opinion, set forth on page four, was not significantly different in that he noted excessive heat and stated that excessive heat suggested use of an accelerant. Moreover, we are not convinced that Mr. Coleman’s testimony would have affected the outcome of the trial. His criticism of Mr. Hardin’s experiments was limited to indicating that the testing was not thorough or sophisticated and that he could not determine whether branding could occur whether the burner was on or off. Also, his conclusion that the skillets had not melted was not significantly different from the testimony of Mr. Pilkington.