Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda brings some discipline to the discovery process in Capitol Places II Owner, LLC, Historic Preservation Fund 2014 LLC, A Partner Other Than The Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 16536-23, filed 7/25/25.

Dates matter, so let’s schedule them. PTSO set 4/7/25 as last day for exchange and lodging of rebuttal reports. The Capitolists’ expert rebuttal witness R (name omitted) already testified to rebut IRS’ expert’s report at partial trial session 5/8/25. The Capitolists move for leave to file R’s supplemental rebuttal report 7/23/25, which IRS opposes 7/25/25 (improperly filed, says Judge Scholar Pat, but spoiler alert, the supplemental report isn’t going in anyway).  Further trial scheduled for 7/28/25.

The Capitolists claim R’s report will rebut an IRS fact witness and opine about legal permissibility of the use of, or changes to the façade of, that “three-story classical revival masonry building designed by James Urquhart, an architect prominent in early 20th-century Columbia.” See my blogpost “Historically Insignificant,” 1/2/25, for more.

Judge Scholar Pat isn’t having this.

 “…the rebuttal expert report relates to the upcoming testimony of a fact witness, M…. Ms. M has yet to testify so we struggle to see what there is to rebut. Instead, this appears to be an attempted end-run around our Rules. To the extent that the report relates to legal permissibility, Fund seeks to offer expert testimony that it could have offered in its case in chief. It failed to do so and we will not endorse the twin fictions that this is proper rebuttal or acceptable under our Rules.” Order, at p. 2. See Rule 143(g)(2) for the 30-day cutoff on experts’ reports.

So stand down R, right?

No, says Judge Scholar Pat. R can talk, not report.

“Although Ms. R testified in rebuttal to Mr. F’s [IRS’ expert] report, this testimony took place before Mr. F himself testified. We will permit testimony by Ms. R for the limited purpose of rebutting trial testimony by Mr. F that was not directly covered in his report. We will not permit cumulative testimony or testimony on points contained in Mr. F’s report (which Ms. R had the opportunity to rebut previously). Likewise, Ms. R may testify in rebuttal to Ms. M.” Order, at p. 2. (Names omitted).

“Win Your Case By Discovery Bamboozlery” seems to be a hot CLE topic.