USA v. Klimenka

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALIAKSANDR KLIMENKA,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-cr-00256-SI-1
ORDER RE: DEFENSE EXPERT
DISCLOSURES
The parties’ Daubert motions are scheduled for a hearing at 1:00 p.m. on October 16, 2026.
The Court has reviewed the briefing and the initial and supplemental disclosures and concludes that
defendant’s expert disclosures do not comply with Rule 16 because they do not contain “a complete
statement of all opinions that the defendant will elicit from the witness in the defendant’s case-in-
chief” as well as “the bases and reasons for them.” Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 16(b)(1)(C).1 For each of
the six defense experts, the disclosures state the topics upon which the witness will opine but do not
disclose any actual opinions or reasoning. This is insufficient. See United States v. Coleman, 149
F.4th 1, 31-32 (1st Cir. 2025) (affirming exclusion of defense expert witness where disclosure was
“minimal” and court could not discern what the opinion was). The government seeks exclusion of
the experts, and defendant’s opposition asserts, inter alia, that defendant can supplement the
disclosures.
Trial is scheduled for November 16, and the pretrial conference is scheduled for November
3. The Court is extremely concerned about the limited amount of time that remains in order for
1 The disclosures also do not list publications authored in the previous 10 years and a list of
cases in which, in the previous 4 years, the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition,
despite the fact that the disclosures state that several of the experts have previously testified as
experts. It is not clear whether the absence of this information means that no expert has authored
any publications and that all expert testimony and depositions were more than 4 years ago, or if this
information is missing.
Case 3:22-cr-00256-SI Document 260 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
defendant to remedy the inadequate disclosures and to allow the government time to respond and
the Court sufficient time to evaluate whether the proposed expert testimony is admissible. The
Court directs the parties to immediately meet and confer over a proposed timetable for
supplementation and to be prepared to discuss a schedule at the October 16 hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 7, 2026 ______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
Case 3:22-cr-00256-SI Document 260 Filed 10/07/26 Page 2 of 2