Schneider

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Schneider raises two issues on appeal in seeking a new trial: first, that the district court improperly allowed the defendant to violate the district court’s in limine order regarding defense expert Feldman, and second, that the district *240 court gave a misleading and confusing jury-instruction on causation over Schneider’s objection. To succeed on either ground of appeal, Schneider must show prejudice. In the malpractice context, this means Schneider must establish that, but for the court’s alleged errors, Schneider would have prevailed on the merits of his underlying wrongful termination suit. We ultimately reject both grounds of appeal because Schneider has failed to show such prejudice. Nevertheless, we briefly address the merits of his grounds of appeal.

Violations of the district court’s in limine order: Schneider argues that Strote violated the court’s in limine order when he failed to remedy technical deficiencies in Feldman’s Rule 26 expert report until the eve of Schneider’s cross-examination of Feldman, and when he elicited testimony from Feldman outside the scope of the expert report. The district court acted within its discretion in refusing…