Terence Tribble v. Nicholas Evangel

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a witness presented expert testimony even where she was not offered as an expert, and finding harmful error where that witness was not disclosed as an expert before trial
• noting that a “[d]isagreement with that ruling or a belief that such testimony would be lay and not expert opinion (or no opinion at all) is not justification; at best, it’s just a misunderstanding of law”
• noting prejudice in the failure to disclose an expert even though the plaintiff knew the witness was going to testify and knew the limit of the testimony
• noting prejudice in the failure to disclose an expert even though the plaintiff knew the witness was going to testify and knew the limit of the testimony
• finding “willfulness” under Rule 37(c)(1) where the defendants “knew that they wanted to elicit exactly the testimony that they did” but failed to make the disclosure required by Rule 26
• \District courts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend ... where the amendment would be futile.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).