Lykins v. Hale

Citations

• 210 N.E.3d 739
• 2023 Ohio 752

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering a motion to exclude an expert witness even though the motion was brought after a deadline contained in a scheduling order. The trial court informed both parties that it did not want any \surprises\ at trial and evidence came to light that appellant's expert report had been plagiarized, rendering it unreliable. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to continue to find a new expert witness. The trial court was not obligated to further delay these proceedings to that the appellant could once again secure a new expert. Furthermore, appellant should have recognized that his proposed expert witness plagiarized a prior expert that was previously retained.