In effect, this passage asks the court to extend the witness carte blanche to render any opinions he sees fit to give””without the necessity of alerting the other side in advance, so as to allow them to prepare for his cross-examination.
Needless to say, those are not the rules. The purpose of expert discovery in the first place is to (a) pin down the other side’s expert to specific, articulated opinions””which may then be subjected as necessary to the cross-examination required to test their merit; and (b) to avoid any element of surprise at trial when the expert does testify.
Apparently ECUSA did not bother to disclose Prof. [Walter] Edgar as an expert, and represented that he would simply catalog an entire litany of historical facts, taken from the various diocesan and other records, for the Court to consider. Well, he was allowed to do that””but he was stopped when it came to expressing his opinions about those facts, because he had not previously disclosed just what those “opinions” would be.