"The primary purpose of Rules 16(b)(1)(B) and (C) is to prevent unfair surprise at trial and to permit the government . . . to prepare rebuttal reports and to prepare for cross-examination at trial." United States v. Naegele, 468 F. Supp. 2d 175, 176 (D.D.C. 2007). "As the Advisory Committee Note expressly states, Rule 16(b)(1)(C) is 'intended to minimize surprise that often results from unexpected expert testimony, reduce the need for continuances, and to provide the opponent with a fair opportunity to test the merit of the expert's testimony through focused cross-examination.'"
The Court concludes that the government's disclosure satisfies the purpose of the Rule to "prevent unfair surprise at trial," to "prepare for cross-examination at trial," and to "provide the opponent with a fair opportunity to test the merit of the expert's testimony through focused cross-examination." United States v. Naegele, 468 F. Supp. 2d 175, 176 (D.D.C. 2007) (discussing the analogous requirements in Rule 16(b)(1)(C)) (internal quotations omitted). The following testimony offered by Ms. Totaro and Mr. Hammond therefore is admissible:
Supporting documents may supplement an expert's “bases and reasons” for their opinion. See United States v. Naegele, 468 F.Supp.2d 175, 176-77 (D.D.C. 2007) (failing to provide any documents supporting a laboratory report does not establish the “bases and reasons” for the expert's opinion). Nevertheless, while providing detailed information is judicious, “[t]he Ninth Circuit has observed that ‘minimal notice' is required under Rule 16.”