Opinion ID: 413149
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: testimony of dr. watson

Text: 16 IH's second argument on appeal is that it was prejudiced by untimely discovery of the substance of the testimony of Dr. Watson, who was one of Woods' two expert witnesses testifying on the design of the Scout II. 1 IH's main complaint is that it did not have any knowledge of the substance of Dr. Watson's testimony until December 9, and could not depose Dr. Watson until February 2, five days before trial. Because one of the purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to eliminate trial by ambush, IH argues, the trial judge erred in denying a continuance or, in the alternative, excluding Dr. Watson's testimony. 17 We certainly agree that trial by ambush is not contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, the trial judge has great discretion in admitting evidence and granting continuances, which we will not lightly disturb. See, e.g., Crompton-Richmond Co. v. Briggs, 560 F.2d 1195, 1202 (5th Cir.1977). More significantly, we do not see any prejudice to IH on this record. Dr. Watson's testimony was substantially similar to the testimony of Dr. Liebkmann, another Woods expert witness, of whom IH had ample advance notice. Furthermore, even given the abbreviated time frame, IH was able to depose Dr. Watson, perform rebuttal tests of its own, and cross-examine Dr. Watson extensively at trial. Accordingly, even if the trial judge's actions were error, we could not hold them to be reversible error.