Carroll v. Trump

Background

The case concerns Carroll’s damages claim based on statements made by Trump on June 21, June 22, and June 24, 2019. The court had granted Carroll partial summary judgment on liability for the June 21 and June 22 statements, but not for the June 24 statement. Carroll later withdrew her damages claim relating to the June 24 statement. The only issue remaining for trial was damages, and trial was scheduled for January 16, 2024.

Carroll identified Professor Ashlee Humphreys as her damages expert, and Trump identified Robert Fisher as his expert. The court had excluded Fisher’s testimony in related proceedings and later formally ruled that he could not testify in this case. Trump did not timely file a motion challenging Humphreys’s testimony. After Carroll withdrew the June 24 damages claim, Trump requested a revised report from Humphreys. Carroll agreed to provide one limited to removing damages attributable to that statement. The revised report was provided on November 13, 2023.

Trump then moved to exclude Humphreys’s testimony or, alternatively, to disclose and call Charles Malkus as a new rebuttal expert. The motion was filed on December 13, 2023, ten months after the deadline for motions challenging expert testimony and about five weeks before trial.

Court’s analysis

The court denied the request to exclude Humphreys’s testimony. It found that the method used in her original and revised reports was the same. Her original report used an “Impressions Model” to estimate media dissemination and an “Impact Model” to estimate the percentage of recipients considered receptive to Trump’s statements. The revised report removed impressions attributable solely to the June 24 statement and adjusted the calculations and estimated repair costs accordingly.

The court stated that Trump’s criticisms of the revised report concerned, at most, the weight of Humphreys’s opinions—the importance a factfinder should give them—rather than a basis for raising a new challenge to admissibility ten months after the deadline. The court said Trump could cross-examine Humphreys and make arguments about her calculations at trial.

The court also denied permission to disclose and call Malkus. In an earlier order, it had allowed a renewed request only if Humphreys’s revised report used new methodology or analysis, and only to the extent the new expert would rebut that new material. The court found that Humphreys’s revised report contained no new methodology or analysis. It therefore treated Trump’s request as effectively asking the court to reconsider its earlier denial of permission to add a new expert.

The court further found that Trump’s request was late, did not identify any matter or controlling decision that the court had overlooked, and sought to present testimony extending beyond the limited subject allowed by the earlier order. The court also noted that Trump’s proposed expert would challenge Humphreys’s qualifications, which the court had previously said was not an appropriate subject for expert testimony in these circumstances.

Finally, the court rejected Trump’s claim that denying the new expert would unfairly prejudice him. It found that Trump’s lack of an expert resulted from his own delay and that he had had opportunities to seek a replacement expert earlier. It also found that an expert was not necessary for Trump to raise many of his proposed points through cross-examination and closing argument.

Disposition

The court denied Trump’s motion to preclude Professor Humphreys’s testimony or, alternatively, to disclose and call Charles Malkus as a new expert witness. The court incorporated its findings and analysis from its most recent order denying Trump’s request to disclose a new expert.