Whether to strike a Defendant's Expert Witness's Report, or allow the Plaintiff's Expert to Supplement "its rebuttal expert report" was the question at issue in this recent non-Insurance case: Download Southern Pan Services Co. v. S.B. Ballard Construction Co. (M.D. Fla,, Morris, United States Magistrate Judge's Order filed 08.20.09.)
The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's Expert Witness Report in that case went beyond simply rebutting Plaintiff's Expert Witness Report to include "additional matters not covered by Plaintiff's expert report ...." Download Southern Pan Services Co. v. S.B. Ballard Construction Co. (M.D. Fla, Order filed 08.20.09.), attached Official Slipsheet Opinion at 2.
The Magistrate Judge concluded that "the Court finds confusion with respect to the parties' obligations under the expert disclosure deadlines could have easily occurred" under the terms of the Orders entered in that particular case. "Accordingly, the Court does not find bad faith on the part of Defendants in only supplying one expert report." The Motion to Strike the Defendant's Expert Witness Report was denied. The Plaintiff, however, was given "the opportunity to supplement its rebuttal expert report to address only Defendants' expert's opinion(s) that relate to Defendants' positive claims," i.e., the 'additional matters not covered by Plaintiff's expert report' in question. Download Southern Pan Services Co. v. S.B. Ballard Construction Co. (M.D. Fla, Order filed 08.20.09.), at 3.
Note: The Author is frequently retained as an Expert Witness in Insurance cases including Claims Handling, Coverage, and Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments