Opinion ID: 6501165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: CBM’s Untimely Expert Designation Report

Text: CBM sees an abuse of discretion in the denial of its months-late motion to designate Dr. Haus as an expert. We see no error. 9 The District Court properly held that Reef would be prejudiced by designating Dr. Haus as an expert only 45 days before the scheduled trial. The Court observed that CBM filed its motion the day motions challenging the validity of experts’ methodology were due, and that, even if Reef could depose Dr. Haus, “it would be virtually impossible” to procure a rebuttal witness before trial. (App. at 31–32.) 7 See, e.g., In re Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd., 718 F.3d at 211 (“The admiralty context is no different [than common law torts], requiring ‘reasonable care under the particular circumstances.’” (quoting 1 Schoenbaum, supra, § 5-2)). 8 An in extremis element excuses “errors in judgment committed by a vessel put in sudden peril through no fault of her own.” 2 Schoenbaum, supra, § 14-3. 9 See Konstantopoulos v. Westvaco Corp., 112 F.3d 710, 719 (3d Cir. 1997) (outlining factors including 1) prejudice or surprise; 2) the ability to cure the prejudice; 3) inefficiency; 4) bad faith or willfulness; and 5) the importance of the excluded testimony) (applying Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Assn., 559 F.2d 894, 904–05 (3d Cir. 1977))). 6 Nor could Reef easily cure that prejudice without restarting discovery, taking more depositions and, of course, obtaining a rebuttal witness. All of which, the District Court noted, would disrupt the proceedings, and potentially delay trial. And the District Court held that CBM willfully missed the deadline, “deliberately wait[ing] until mediation was unsuccessfully concluded to pursue this additional line of evidence.” (App. at 33.)10 Finally, the District Court acknowledged that Dr. Haus’s testimony was potentially important to CBM, but fairly concluded that, given the willful and prejudicial delay, exclusion “is an appropriate result given plaintiff’s cavalier treatment of its discovery obligations.” (App. at 33.) We agree.