Special Master Poppiti granted Intel’s objection to the class plaintiffs’ reservation of the right to call Professor Roger Noll as a rebuttal witness at the hearing on class plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Special Master concluded that the class plaintiffs’ disclosure of Prof. Noll’s testimony as a rebuttal witness was untimely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(ii), which requires that parties disclose potential rebuttal witnesses within 30 days after the opposing party’s expert disclosure (here, November 30, 2008), and that the class plaintiffs waived any right they might have had to identify a new rebuttal expert after the 30 day window closed by failing to raise the issue at a January 2009 hearing. Further, the court held that case law favored exclusion of Prof. Noll’s rebuttal testimony, because (1) allowing the testimony would prejudice Intel; and (2) the facts suggest that class plaintiffs’ actions were a willful attempt to circumvent the Special Master’s order denying their request to file an additional expert report. The Special Master therefore concluded that Prof. Noll should not be permitted to testify as a rebuttal witness for class plaintiffs. The Special Master determined, however, that Dr. Leffler—an expert witness properly disclosed to Intel—should be permitted to testify as a rebuttal witness because Intel would not be prejudiced or surprised by Leffler’s testimony.