Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00214.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 10 Plaintiff's misplaced argument that Ms. Maxwell is somehow required to make Dr. Esplin available at trial violates the fundamental rules of trial and the requirements for rebuttal witnesses. Of course, at this point, Ms. Maxwell does not know information Plaintiff may present in her case-in-chief. Ms. Maxwell has filed well-founded motions in limine to exclude the testimony of both Dr. Kliman and Professor Coonan prohibiting from providing their credibility and vouching opinions. This is the subject matter of Dr. Esplin’s rebuttal report which explains that there is no reliable or scientific methodology by which an expert could reliably come to such opinions. Of course, if the improper testimony by Dr. Kliman and Professor Coonan is excluded, as it should be, there will be nothing for Dr. Esplin to “rebut” and he will not be called as a witness in the defense case-in-chief. In light of the well settled rules that a rebuttal expert is “intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified” in the expert report of another party, there would be no basis to for Dr. Esplin to testify if Kliman and Coonan are excluded. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(ii). Moreover, because Dr. Esplin is a designated rebuttal expert, it is entirely improper to have any portion of his opinions or testimony presented in the Plaintiff’s case in chief. See Lindner v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 625, 636 (D. Hawaii 2008) (holding that individuals designated only as rebuttal experts could present limited testimony, could not testifv as part of a party's case-in- chief, and would not be allowed to testify “unless and until” the experts they were designated to rebut testified at trial); Johnson v. Grays Harbor Cmty. Hosp., No. CO6—-5502BHS, 2007 WL 4510313, at *2 (W.D.Wash. Dec. 18, 2007) (finding that experts designated as rebuttal witnesses would “be permitted only to offer rebuttal testimony at trial”). Plaintiff also fails to explain how the designated testimony could be deemed permissible given that the questions posed were all