ff may present in her case-in-chief. Ms. Maxwell has filed well-founded motions in limine to exclude the testimony of both Dr. Kliman and Professor Coonan prohibiting from providing their credibility and vouching opinions. This is the subject matter of Dr. Esplin's rebuttal report which explains that

ce on the same subject matter identified" in the expert report of another party, there would be no basis to for Dr. Esplin to testify if Kliman and Coonan are excluded. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(ii). Moreover, because Dr. Esplin is a designated rebuttal expert, it is entirely improper to have any por

s case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government's proof of the charges can have that tendency." Id.; accord United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553, 1561 (2d Cir. 1991). The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that actions and statements are admissible as direct evidence of the cri

ssary to authenticate business records under FRE 803(b) 27. Any witnesses necessary for impeachment or rebuttal 28. Dr. Kliman (expert) 29. Dr. Coonan (expert) 30. Jim Jansen (expert) 31. Chris Andersen (expert) 32. Bill Chandler (rebuttal expert) 33. Dianne Flores (expert) Plaintiff reserv

ssary to authenticate business records under FRE 803(b) 27. Any witnesses necessary for impeachment or rebuttal 28. Dr. Kliman (expert) 29. Dr. Coonan (expert) 30. Jim Jansen (expert) 31. Chris Andersen (expert) 32. Bill Chandler (rebuttal expert) 33. Dianne Flores (expert) Plaintiff reserv