Matthew Enterprise, Inc. v. Chrysler Group LLC
Filing
164
ORDER DENYING 154 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT AND EXTEND THE EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2016)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
MATTHEW ENTERPRISE, INC.,
Case No. 13-cv-04236-BLF
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF TO SERVE A
SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
AND EXTEND THE EXPERT
DISCOVERY CUT-OFF
9
v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,
[Re: ECF 154]
Defendant.
13
14
Pursuant to the case schedule, see ECF 127, Plaintiff’s expert, Edward Stockton, filed an
15
expert report, Defendant’s expert, Glenn Woroch, filed an expert report, and Stockton filed a
16
rebuttal expert report. See ECF 127. The case schedule does not contemplate supplemental reports
17
but, nearly a month after receiving Plaintiff’s rebuttal report, Defendant moves for leave to file a
18
supplemental expert report pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(E) and 26(e).
19
ECF 154.
20
Rule 26(a)(2), which governs disclosure of expert testimony, requires supplementation
21
22
“when required under Rule 26(e).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(E). Rule 26(e) requires
supplementation or correction “if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or
23
response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not
24
otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Fed.
25
R. Civ. P. 26(e) (emphasis added).
26
Defendant argues that the Stockton rebuttal report includes new analyses and opinions,
27
including new regressions and a case study, that render Woroch’s opinions incomplete. Mot. at 2.
28
1
Defendant seeks leave to file a supplemental export report to “respond to all of Stockton’s
2
analyses,” Mot. at 3, that would be due more than a month after the current expert discovery cut-
3
off and on the same day that the motions for summary judgment are due. The items identified by
4
Defendant are: 1) opinions and analysis regarding the level of inter-brand and intra-brand
5
competition among dealerships, including a regression analysis and an analysis of a Dodge
6
dealership in 1999 South Florida; 2) opinions and analysis regarding what Stevens Creek’s sales
7
objectives would have been in the but-for world; 3) opinions and analysis regarding dealerships’
8
cost-of-goods-sold; 4) analyses purporting to support Stockton’s Gravity Model; 5) recalculation
9
of claimed damages; and 6) opinion and analyses regarding diversion of sales. Mot. at 2.
Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s request, arguing that Defendant fundamentally misinterprets
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
the intent and scope of Rule 26(e). ECF 160, Opp. at 2. Plaintiff further offers a declaration by
12
Stockton explaining that the rebuttal report does not include new opinions, but rather is limited to
13
rebutting Woroch’s opinions. See ECF 161, Stockton Dec. Plaintiff also argues that
14
supplementation would unfairly prejudice Plaintiff by denying its right to full discovery and
15
rebuttal of Defendant’s expert opinions, requiring another round of depositions, or delaying
16
resolution of its case without good cause.
Defendant relies on Noffsinger v. Valspar Corp., No. 09 C 916, 2012 WL 5948929 (N.D.
17
18
Ill. Nov. 27, 2012) for the proposition that new information warrants supplementation. In
19
Noffsinger, plaintiff alleged that the defendant had caused him respiratory problems. After the
20
defendant learned that the plaintiff had been smoking during the relevant time period, the court
21
allowed the defendant to supplement its expert report under Rule 26(e). Id. at *1. That new fact
22
stands in stark contrast to the “new information” challenged here, including a re-calculation of the
23
same underlying lost profits number using an inflation-adjustor Defendant’s own expert
24
recommended. See Mot. at 2; see also ECF 156-13, Pl.’s Rebuttal Report ¶¶ 71-73.1
The Court finds that application of Rule 26(e) is not warranted in this circumstance. Rule
25
26
1
27
28
The other case Defendant cites for this proposition, Allen v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., No.
5:09-cv-230, 2013 WL 211303 (D. Vt. Jan. 18, 2013) , considered the permissibility of expert
rebuttal, which is governed by a different rule than supplementation. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(D)(ii).
2
1
26(e) “permits supplemental reports only for the narrow purpose of correcting inaccuracies or
2
adding information that was not available at the time of the initial report.” Minebea v. Papst, 231
3
F.R.D. 3, 6 (D.D.C. 2005). Defendant does not actually seek to correct inaccuracies in its expert
4
report, nor to add newly discovered information; rather, Defendant wants to “respond” to what it
5
characterizes as Stockton’s “new” analyses, which include challenges to Woroch’s methodology.
6
See ECF 156-13, Rebuttal Report ¶¶ 32-35, 65-66.
7
Plaintiff correctly argues that allowing such supplementation could open the door to
endless rounds of expert reports. See, e.g., Beller v. United States, 221 F.R.D. 696, 701 (D.N.M.
9
2003) (finding that allowing supplementation to “deepen and strengthen” a prior report would
10
“create a system where . . . there would be no finality to expert reports”). The Court finds this
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
specter particularly persuasive in light of Defendant’s failure to identify the specific set of new
12
opinions and analyses it hopes to supplement, much less provide the Court with a sense of the
13
proposed supplementation.
14
Moreover, although Defendant purports to challenge six identified new opinions or
15
analyses in the Stockton rebuttal report, it clearly seeks leave to file a complete do-over of the
16
Woroch report without any limitation. See Mot. at 3. Such a carte blanche under the guise of Rule
17
26(e) is not warranted.
18
In light of Defendant’s untethered request and the late stage of litigation, the Court finds
19
that supplementation is not warranted. The Court does not determine whether or not each example
20
Defendant provided constitutes new opinion or analysis. If Defendant believes that Plaintiff’s
21
Rebuttal Report surpassed the scope allowed for rebuttal, Defendant may move to strike those
22
specific opinions.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
26
27
Dated: March 1, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?