express and the basis and reasons for. them.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). A litigant that fails to comply with Rule 26 “without substantial justification” is barred from having its expert testify at trial "unless such failure is harmless.” Walter Int’l Prods., Inc. v. Salinas, 650 F.3d 1402, 1410 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Prieto, 361 F.3d at 1318 (citations and quotation marks omitted)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Likewise, a motion for a new trial should not be granted if the error was harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61; Romero, 552 F.3d at 1324. We have found that the failure to timely disclose all aspects of an expert’s testimony was not prejudicial in circumstances similar to those in the case at bar. See Lakeman v. Otis Elevator Co., 930 F.2d 1547, 1554 (11th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>); Shelak v. White Motor Co., 581 F.2d 1155,
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing recross where the prosecutor did not raise any new matters during redirect holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing expert testimony on matters not noticed where the appellants trial counsel was well versed in those matters and capable of crossexamining the experts effectively