We review the chancellor's exclusion of Morris's testimony only for an abuse of discretion. Rodrigue v. Rodrigue , 270 So. 3d 933, 939 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). Uniform Chancery Court Rule 1.10(a) provides, "Absent special circumstances the court will not allow testimony at trial of an expert witness who was not designated as an expert witness to all attorneys of record at least sixty days before trial."

Uniform Chancery Court Rule 1.10 was not at issue in Tennin or Warren , but Chancery Rule 1.10 applies in this case, providing that "[a]bsent special circumstances the court will not allow testimony at trial of an expert witness who was not designated as an expert witness to all attorneys of record at least sixty days before trial." UCCR 1.10. Danny asserts that he complied with Chancery Rule 1.10. However, the specific requirement in Chancery Rule 1.10 to disclose experts "at least sixty days before trial" is in addition to the Rule 26(b) general requirements for a full expert disclosure. SeeRodrigue v. Rodrigue , 270 So. 3d 933, 939 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (noting that "a party must disclose the name and content of any expert witness that it may call to testify" under Rule 26(b) and "[i]n addition" comply with Chancery Rule 1.10 ). We find that the chancellor was well within her discretion in imposing the attorney's fees sanction against Danny for his failure to fully comply with these requirements—a sanction far more lenient than exclusion of Dr. Lott altogether.