Hong Van Nguyen (plaintiff) retained a medical doctor, Nathan Schechter, to testify as an expert witness in Nguyen’s suit against IBP, Inc. (defendant). Nguyen provided the following information regarding Schechter: (1) a report documenting his opinions, the bases and underlying data therefor, and exhibits that might be used in support; (2) a curriculum vitae that did not include any information on publications by Schechter over the previous 10 years; and (3) a list of 137 patients as to whom Schechter had provided deposition testimony during the previous 34 months. Neither the curriculum vitae nor the patient list was signed by Schechter. The patient list included name and contact information for the patients’ attorneys but such information was incomplete; nor did the list identify the particular cases in which Schechter testified or whether he provided any testimony at trial. Nguyen stated that the patient information was gleaned from Schechter’s available records and that Schechter lacked all of the information required to be disclosed. The expert report did not include a statement of Schechter’s compensation in the matter, but through a supplemental answer to an interrogatory, Nguyen disclosed that Schechter was being paid $750 for his work and testimony. IBP moved to exclude Schechter’s testimony at trial on the ground that the expert disclosure failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). A magistrate judge considered the motion.