Service with Class Corp. v. Hawker Beechcraft Global Customer Support, LLC.

Filing 67

ORDER denying 45 Motion to Strike Dapkunas' supplemental report. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 2/16/2018. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
OIL CONSULTING ENTERPRISE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-3453-T-24-AEP

HAWKER BEECHCRAFT GLOBAL
CUSTOMER SUPPORT, LLC
d/b/a Hawker Beechcraft Services,
n/k/a Textron Aviation, Inc.,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Supplemental
Report of Plaintiff’s Expert, Stanley Dapkunas. (Doc. No. 45). Plaintiff opposes the motion.
(Doc. No. 55). The Court held a hearing on this motion on February 7, 2018. As explained
below, the motion is denied.
I. Background
In December of 2014, Plaintiff Oil Consulting Enterprise, Inc. contracted with Defendant
Hawker Beechcraft Global Customer Support, LLC to perform a Phase I–IV pre-purchase
inspection on a King Air 350 aircraft at Defendant’s Tampa facility (“First Inspection”). (Doc.
No. 46-2). During the First Inspection, no major corrosion damage was discovered.
On January 7, 2016, the aircraft was taken to the Cessna Service Center in San Antonio,
Texas for a pre-purchase inspection (“Second Inspection”). During the Second Inspection,
significant corrosion was discovered.
Plaintiff contends that the extensive corrosion that was discovered during the Second

Inspection must have existed during the First Inspection. As a result, on November 23, 2016,
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in state court, and Defendant later removed the case to this
Court. In its amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached their contract to
conduct the First Inspection and that Defendant negligently performed the First Inspection by
failing to discover the extensive corrosion on the aircraft. (Doc. No. 18).
II. Motion to Strike Supplemental Report
Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s expert, Stanley Dapkunas’, supplemental report
because it contains new opinions and because it was not timely disclosed. Plaintiff contends that
Dapkunas’ supplemental report does not contain new opinions; it merely clarifies his prior
opinions based on new evidence that Plaintiff received from Defendant after Dapkunas issued his
report and after his deposition was taken.
The Court agrees with Defendant that the supplemental report contains new opinions.
However, it is not clear whether or to what extent the new opinions were based on discovery that
Defendant turned over after Dapkunas’ initial report and deposition. Due to the late disclosed
discovery and in an abundance of caution, the Court will not strike Dapkunas’ supplemental
report. See Benson v. Tocco, Inc., 113 F.3d 1203, 1209 (11th Cir. 1997)(stating that it was error
to strike the plaintiffs’ expert’s late disclosed affidavit, because the delay was caused by the
defendant’s delayed disclosure of discovery on which the affidavit was based).
However, the Court will allow Defendant to re-depose Dapkunas regarding the opinions
contained in his supplemental report. At the pretrial conference, which is scheduled for March 6,
2018, the Court can address the need for any additional discovery or supplemental reports
resulting from the Dapkunas deposition.

2

III. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AN ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike the
Supplemental Report of Plaintiff’s Expert, Stanley Dapkunas (Doc. No. 45) is DENIED.
Defendant may re-depose Dapkunas on or before March 16, 2018.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 16th day of February, 2018.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

3