Millet, Jr. v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated

Filing 220

ORDER AND REASONS denying 202 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement Initial Expert Reports. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 3/17/2015.(blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JUNIUS MILLET, JR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 13-0934

HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED, ET AL.

SECTION "L" (4)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to supplement initial expert reports. (Rec.
Doc. 202). Plaintiffs argue that they can explain the need for the supplement, the expert
testimony is important, there would be no undue prejudice, and a continuance could cure any
such prejudice. During the March 17, 2015 telephone status conference, OneBeacon stated its
opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that it was brought into the litigation late and would
suffer prejudice by supplemental expert reports at this late stage.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “shall not be modified
except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 16(b).
In assessing an untimely motion to amend, the Court must consider (1) the explanation for the
failure to timely move for leave to amend; (2) the importance of the amendment; (3) potential
prejudice in allowing the amendment; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such
prejudice. S&W Enterprises, L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th
Cir. 2003).
As the Court stated at the February status conference, (Rec. Doc. 163), it would only
consider Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement expert reports if all parties consented to the
supplement. As OneBeacon explained in at the March 17, 2015 status conference, it has opposed
the proposed supplement. There is merit to OneBeacon’ opposition. Plaintiffs have not

established good cause to supplement their initial expert reports. They have not established a
sufficient explanation for making such a significant supplement at this stage, or why they could
not have done so sooner. Notably, the deadline for Plaintiffs’ supplements was October 17, 2014.
(Rec. Doc. 101). Moreover, a continuance would prejudice all parties. The alleged asbestos
exposure in this case took place from 1968 to 1972 – over forty years ago. A number of parties
and potential witnesses have already passed away. A continuance would prejudice all parties,
particularly OneBeacon, who was brought into this litigation late. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave, (Rec. Doc. 202), is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of March, 2015.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2