ORDER

GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs' Memorandum on the Substantive Admissibility of Plaintiffs' Expert Reports (Doc. 375) submitted on October 31, 2016 and the Defendants' Memorandum Regarding Substantive Admissibility of Expert Reports (Doc. 378) submitted November 3, 2016.

The Plaintiffs claim that their experts should be allowed to adopt their reports as part of their direct testimony and allow the introduction of those reports as substantive evidence. The Court declines to do so.

The Plaintiff's expert's reports are inadmissible hearsay. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that the expert reports are witness' prior out of court statements and these reports are being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This fits neatly into the definition of inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801. Applying Rules 801 and 802, courts around the country have excluded expert reports offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted, as Plaintiffs' are, as inadmissible hearsay.1

While there are three narrow 801(d)(1) exceptions for hearsay, none render admissible a witness's prior consistent statement any time that a witness adopts those prior statements in testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A)-(C).

Additionally, in light of the live testimony of the experts, submitting the expert's reports as evidence is needlessly cumulative and thus are excluded under Rule 403. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 611(a), the Court determines that excluding the expert's reports is more likely to make the examination of the witnesses more effective for determining the truth and avoid wasting time. Fed. R. Evid. 611(a).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plaintiff's expert's reports will not be allowed to be introduced as substantive evidence.

SO ORDERED.