der
Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (ARFLP) 49(H). We disagree.

¶10            The trial court issued an order setting disclosure deadlines in
June 2017. The order clearly set the deadline for expert disclosures as 60
days before the hearing date of October 26, 2017. That meant the deadline
for expert disclosure was August 27, 2017. Husband did not file his motion
to continue until almost a month later on September 25, 2017. By that time,
he had already missed the deadline for disclosing experts. Husband argues
that pursuant to Johnson v. Provoyeur, 245 Ariz. 239 (App. 2018) the
continuance of the trial necessarily continued the deadline for disclosure.
However, in Johnson, when the trial court continued the trial it also
expressly reset the disclosure deadline to 60 days before the continued trial
date. Id. at 241, ¶ 5. The trial court in this instance did not make such an
order, and a continuation of a trial does not automatically reset disclosure
deadlines. See State v. Superior Court, 127 Ariz. 175, 176 (1980) (holding that
the “resetting of a trial date does not change the date by which pretrial
motions must be filed unless so ordered by the trial court”). If husband
wished to extend the deadline for disclosures he should have filed a motion
to extend said deadline, he did not do so.

¶11            Although husband asserts that wife had notice that he would
be using an expert and should have expected the report, that argument is
not supported by the record. Husband points to the affidavit filed by the
parties providing the court with names of possible neutral third-party
valuators, which included the name of husband’s expert he eventually
used. However, this is not sufficient notice for wife to know husband would
be filing a separate expert report. The names provided on that list were for
the judge to blindly choose from. If we are to follow husband’s logic he was
also disclosing the other two names as his expert witness.

¶12          Furthermore, husband has not demonstrated prejudice
re