Securities & Exchange Commission v. Morelli

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that barring expert’s testimony as sanction for inadequate Rule 26(a)(2)(B) disclosure was unduly harsh where expert testimony will dominate the proceedings
• “Nothing causes greater prejudice than to have to guess how and why an adversarial expert reached his or her conclusion.”
• “Nothing causes greater prejudice than to have to guess how and why an adversarial expert reached his or her conclusion.”
• “Nothing causes greater prejudice than to have to guess how and why an adversarial expert reached his or her conclusion.”
• “Nothing causes greater prejudice than to have to guess how and why an adversarial expert reached his or her conclusion.”
• finding a report Rule 26(a)(2)(B) deficient because, among other things, “there were many documents other than those disclosed in [the expert’s] report which he relied upon in reaching his conclusions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).