In re HIV Antitrust Litigation
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 IN RE HIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO PRECLUDE REBUTTAL
TESTIMONY
10 Docket No. 1987
12 13 At the morning conference on June 26, 2023, the Court DENIED Defendants’ motion to preclude the rebuttal testimony of Dr. Suryanarayanan. This order memorializes the Court’s ruling and provides additional analysis, as necessary. According to Defendants, “[r]ebuttal evidence – especially expert rebuttal evidence – is subject to stringent limitations on admissibility and may be introduced solely to contradict unanticipated facts brought out in Defendants’ case.” Mot. at 2. See, e.g., Terpin v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, No. 18-cv-06975-ODW-KS, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46868, at *17 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2023) (stating that, “when a rebuttal expert’s testimony is offered to ‘contradict an expected or anticipated portion of the other party's case-in-chief, then the witness is not a rebuttal witness or anything close to…