Carroll v. Trump

Background

E. Jean Carroll’s first action against Donald J. Trump sought damages for defamation based on statements Trump made on June 21, June 22, and June 24, 2019. The case was scheduled for trial on January 16, 2024. The opinion states that Carroll had already withdrawn her damages claim based on the June 24 statement after the court granted her partial summary-judgment motion on liability concerning the June 21 and June 22 statements, but not the June 24 statement.

Carroll designated Professor Ashlee Humphreys as her damages expert, and Trump designated Robert Fisher. The court had excluded Fisher’s testimony in a prior related proceeding and later ruled on the comparable motion in this case. Trump did not timely file a motion seeking to exclude Humphreys’s original testimony. After Carroll withdrew the June 24 damages claim, Trump requested a revised damages report. Carroll agreed to provide one solely to account for that withdrawal, and the revised report was provided on November 13, 2023. The report reduced the damages amount but, according to the court, used the same methodology as the original report.

The motion to exclude Humphreys

Trump moved on December 13, 2023, to preclude, meaning prevent, Humphreys from testifying. The court noted that the deadline for such evidence-related motions was February 16, 2023, making Trump’s motion about ten months late. The court rejected Trump’s argument that the revised report justified the delay because the report did not introduce a new method or analysis. Humphreys had used an “Impressions Model” and an “Impact Model” in both reports; the revision removed impressions attributable solely to the June 24 statement and made related arithmetic adjustments to the damages calculation.

The court said any dispute about whether the revised calculation should also account for media content mentioning the June 24 statement alongside the June 21 or June 22 statements went to the weight of Humphreys’s opinions, meaning how persuasive the testimony might be, rather than providing a basis for raising the challenge for the first time so late.

The request to add Malkus

Trump alternatively sought permission to disclose and call Charles Malkus as a new rebuttal expert. In a prior order, the court had said Trump could renew such a request only if Humphreys’s supplemental report contained new methodology or analysis and only to rebut that new material. The court found that the supplemental report contained neither. It therefore treated Trump’s request as a motion for reconsideration, which generally had to be filed within fourteen days and identify matters or controlling decisions the court had overlooked. Trump filed nearly a month after the earlier decision and did not claim that the court had overlooked such matters.

The court also found that Malkus’s proposed testimony was not limited to rebutting any new methodology or analysis. It extended to challenging Humphreys’s qualifications and other subjects resembling testimony the court had previously excluded. The court rejected Trump’s claim of unfair prejudice, reasoning that Trump had known for months that Fisher was unlikely to testify, had not timely retained another expert, and could address many of the proposed points through cross-examination and closing argument without an expert witness.

Ruling

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Trump’s motion to preclude Humphreys’s testimony or, alternatively, to permit disclosure and use of Malkus as a new rebuttal expert. The court incorporated its analysis from its most recent order denying Trump’s request to disclose a new expert.