Expert reports are due 120 days before trial, not at the deadline for discovery. Absent a scheduling order or agreement otherwise, this trips up even experienced practitioners, and the consequence of missing it is automatic exclusion of the expert.
How the Math Works
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 195.2 requires a party to designate experts — that is, furnish the information requested under Rule 194.2(f) (or, in family law cases, Texas Family Code § 301.052(a)(6)) — by the later of 30 days after the request is served or, for a party seeking affirmative relief, 90 days before the end of the discovery period. Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.2(a); Tex. Fam. Code § 301.102.
In most family law cases, both parties seek affirmative relief, and the discovery period ends 30 days before a Level 2 trial setting. Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.3(b). Ninety days before that 30-day mark lands squarely at 120 days before trial. That is the pitfall: practitioners calendar the 30-day discovery cutoff and assume expert designation follows the same clock. It doesn’t.
“Designate” Means More Than a Name
Rule 194.2(f) and its Family Code counterpart require a responding party to disclose:
- the expert’s name, address, and telephone number;
- the subject matter of the expert’s testimony;
- the general substance of the expert’s mental impressions and opinions, and a brief summary of the basis for them; and
- if the expert is retained, employed, or otherwise controlled by the responding party, all documents, reports, models, or data provided to, reviewed by, or prepared for the expert, plus the expert’s current resume and biography.
Many practitioners mistakenly believe that naming the expert and describing a general topic area satisfies this requirement, leaving the opinions to a later “will supplement” response. It does not. A response that omits any of this required information is treated as a complete failure to designate — not a partial or curable disclosure. VingCard A.S. v. Merrimac Hosp. Sys., Inc., 59 S.W.3d 847, 856 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied); RDJRLW, Inc. v. Miller, No. 02-16-00132-CV, 2017 WL 2590568, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals illustrated the danger in In re D.W., No. 02-13-00293-CV, 2015 WL 1262820 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.). There, a mother identified her expert and described in detail the topics he would address (Dubai law, safety, enforceability of judgments abroad), but never disclosed his actual opinions. The trial court allowed the testimony; the court of appeals reversed, holding that describing subject matter without opinions is not a timely designation.
More recently, the Dallas Court of Appeals reached the same result in In re B.N.L., 700 S.W.3d 681, 687–88 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022), rev’d on other grounds, 687 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. 2024). There, wife identified her expert and the subject matter but stated only that opinions were “not yet formed” and would be supplemented. Even when wife eventually provided the expert’s mental impressions and opinions prior to trial, this did not cure her failure to comply with the expert designation deadline 90 days before trial.
Supplementation Is a Duty, Not a Loophole
Rule 193.5 requires a party to supplement an incomplete or incorrect response reasonably promptly after learning supplementation is necessary. But supplementation exists to correct information that has changed due to new evidence or circumstances. It is not a mechanism for withholding opinions until the eve of trial and calling it “supplementation” later. Ersek v. Davis & Davis, P.C., 69 S.W.3d 268, 272 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied). Courts have expressly rejected the argument that Rule 193.5 supersedes the 195.2 designation deadline.
Timing matters here too: supplementation made less than 30 days before trial is already presumed untimely, Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.5(b), and courts have found supplementation untimely even when made more than 30 days before trial if the party sat on the information. See generally In re A.R.M., 593 S.W.3d 358, 374 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2018, pet. denied); In re Staff Care, Inc., 422 S.W.3d 876, 881 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.); Snider v. Stanley, 44 S.W.3d 713, 716 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001, pet. denied).
That said, an expert may refine calculations or perfect a report as trial approaches, so long as opposing counsel has enough information to prepare cross-examination and rebuttal. Exxon Corp. v. W. Tex. Gathering Co., 868 S.W.2d 299, 304 (Tex. 1993).
Automatic Exclusion & the Narrow Escape Hatches
Rule 193.6 makes exclusion mandatory, not discretionary, for any expert or evidence not disclosed timely. A party can avoid exclusion only by showing (1) good cause; or (2) that the failure will not unfairly surprise or prejudice the opposing party, and the burden is on the party offering the evidence.
The good-cause bar is high. The Texas Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that a party is not excused “without a strict showing of good cause,” and that inadvertence of counsel is never enough. Diamond Hydraulics, Inc. v. GAC Equip., LLC, 731 S.W.3d 901, 905–06 (Tex. 2026). Good cause is generally reserved for circumstances outside a party’s control — for example, where a designated expert abruptly refused to testify and left the state weeks before trial, and counsel promptly notified opposing counsel and sought a substitute. Simply hiring an expert late, or an expert not yet having reviewed enough to form a final opinion, does not qualify. Gammill v. McElroy, No. 02-02-00388-CV, 2003 WL 22674728, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).
The unfair surprise/prejudice showing is equally narrow. It requires proof that the opposing party had enough information to assess settlement, avoid trial by ambush, and prepare cross-examination and rebuttal, not merely that the opponent could depose the expert or seek a continuance. Mid Continent Lift & Equip., LLC v. J. McNeill Pilot Car Serv., 537 S.W.3d 660, 675–76 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, no pet.).
Practice Tip
Docket the 120-day deadline on the day a case is filed — not on the discovery cutoff. Ensure any timely response includes actual opinions and their basis, not just names and topics. If an expert’s opinions genuinely are not yet formed, consider seeking a Level 3 discovery control plan modifying the deadline rather than gambling on “will supplement” language that courts have consistently rejected.