Opinion ID: 182792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rulings Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion

Text: As noted before, Capitol also challenges the orders of the district court denying its motions (1) to supplement expert disclosure, (2) to strike a reply, and (3) for judgment under Rule 54(b) or for reconsideration. We review all three rulings for abuse of discretion. See Washburn v. Lavoie, 437 F.3d 84, 94 (D.C.Cir.2006) (discovery deadlines); Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, 101 F.3d 145, 150 (D.C.Cir.1996) (motion to strike); Flynn v. Dick Corp., 481 F.3d 824, 829 (D.C.Cir.2007) (motion for reconsideration).
Capitol argues the district court erred by denying its motion to file a supplement to its expert disclosures after the deadline for filing had passed and discovery had closed. The court denied the motion because it concluded Capitol had not shown good cause for its tardiness, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc., Civ. A. No. 05-2115, 2007 WL 1589495, at -9 (June 1, 2007). Capitol argues there was good cause for an extension because Guest did not promptly make available for deposition certain witnesses who would have provided facts essential to the report by Capitol's expert. As Guest suggests, [t]he good cause standard requires the `party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite [its] diligence.' S & W Enters., LLC v. SouthTrust Bank, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir.2003) (quoting 6A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1522.1 (2d ed.1990)). Capitol's actions in this case do not bespeak diligence or any sense of urgency at all in preparing its expert's report, which was only a single page in length. Capitol noticed the depositions at issue for October 16, 2006  the same day the report was due  meaning, as the district court concluded, the report could not practically have incorporated any information from the depositions. Civ. A. No. 05-2115, 2007 WL 1589495, at . Even after the depositions were cancelled and the district court extended the expert disclosure deadline by a month, Capitol did not again notice the depositions or file a supplement to its report during that period. Indeed, Capitol never again noticed the depositions and attempted to supplement its report only after the close of discovery. Because Capitol did not show good cause, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Capitol's motion for an extension of time.
Capitol next argues the district court erred by denying its motion to strike the reply Guest filed in support of its motion for summary judgment; the motion to strike was based upon Guest's supposedly late introduction of arguments and facts. The district court rejected this argument and denied the motion to strike because the reply brief and an attached affidavit did no more than bolster Guest's opening arguments. [] Accordingly, we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. Cf. Stabilisierungsfonds Fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distrib., 647 F.2d 200, 201 (D.C.Cir.1981) (motions to strike, as a general rule, are disfavored).
Finally, Capitol argues the district court erred by denying its motion for a Rule 54(b) judgment, which would have enabled Capitol to appeal at once the order granting summary judgment to Guest, or in the alternative, for reconsideration of the same order. The interlocutory appeal issue is now moot because a final judgment has been entered and the case has been presented to this court on appeal. Thus, Capitol has already obtained the relief it sought, that is, the right to appeal the order. See I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 789 F.2d 21, 24 (D.C.Cir.1986) (interlocutory order merges into final judgment and is reviewable upon appeal from final judgment). The district court addressed Capitol's request for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 54(b), which not only authorizes the court to enter a partial final judgment but also recognizes its inherent power to reconsider an interlocutory order as justice requires. See Greene v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Am., 764 F.2d 19, 22-23 (1st Cir.1985) (Breyer, J.) (the district judge is in the best position to assess whether or not `justice requires' [reconsideration]). The district court understandably determined justice did not require reconsidering its order, for Capitol raised no arguments for reconsideration the court had not already rejected on the merits except its argument that the court had improperly weighed testimony. Similarly, on appeal, Capitol merely repeats its arguments concerning summary judgment. These arguments are without merit for reasons already stated; a fortiori, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Capitol's motion for reconsideration.