In re HIV Antitrust Litigation
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-02573
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In In re HIV Antitrust Litigation, Judge Chen denied defendants’ motion to preclude Dr. Suryanarayanan’s rebuttal testimony, limiting it to true rebuttal.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ ability to present Dr. Suryanarayanan’s rebuttal testimony and defendants’ ability to challenge that testimony. The testimony was limited to the scope of Dr. Berkland’s testimony.
What happened
In In re HIV Antitrust Litigation, defendants asked the court to bar Dr. Suryanarayanan from giving rebuttal expert testimony. They argued that rebuttal evidence may address only unexpected facts raised in the opposing side’s case.
The court found that plaintiffs had identified Dr. Suryanarayanan as a rebuttal witness to defendants’ expert, Dr. Berkland, in trial witness lists. Defendants had also received Dr. Suryanarayanan’s report, questioned him at a deposition, and allowed Dr. Berkland to review the report before his deposition.
Judge Chen denied the motion to preclude Dr. Suryanarayanan’s testimony. The court limited the testimony to true rebuttal and said it could not go beyond the scope of Dr. Berkland’s testimony.
The detailed version
- In re HIV Antitrust Litigation · No. 3:19-cv-02573
- Edward Chen
- June 26, 2023
Background
At a June 26, 2023 morning conference, the court denied defendants’ motion to preclude, or bar, the rebuttal testimony of Dr. Suryanarayanan. The order memorialized that ruling and added analysis.
Defendants argued that rebuttal evidence—particularly expert rebuttal evidence—is subject to strict limits and may be used only to contradict unanticipated facts presented in defendants’ case. The court characterized this as an argument that plaintiffs were attempting to introduce testimony that should have been disclosed earlier.
Court’s Analysis
The court said the issue turned on the notice defendants received that Dr. Suryanarayanan would testify as a rebuttal witness and whether allowing his testimony would prejudice defendants. The court found persuasive an earlier decision that considered notice and prejudice when evaluating the permissibility of rebuttal expert testimony.
The court found that the notice and prejudice analysis favored plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had expressly identified Dr. Suryanarayanan as a rebuttal witness to defendants’ expert, Dr. Berkland, in amended trial witness lists dated April 6 and May 19, 2023. Defendants had also known the substance of Dr. Suryanarayanan’s testimony since receiving his report during discovery. Dr. Suryanarayanan had been deposed, and Dr. Berkland had reviewed his report before Dr. Berkland’s deposition, allowing him to respond to it.
Ruling
The court denied defendants’ motion to preclude Dr. Suryanarayanan as a rebuttal witness. It restricted his testimony to “true rebuttal,” meaning that the testimony could not go beyond the scope of Dr. Berkland’s testimony.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.