Opinion ID: 1443085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Expert's Supplemental Report Excluded

Text: On January 18, 2005, PwC filed a motion seeking, inter alia, to strike appellants' proposed Supplemental Report. According to PwC, the record reflected that Goldstein had testified during his Carello deposition on April 1, 2004 (approximately seven months before submitting the November Report), that he had read Reynolds' March 2004 deposition. PwC also asserted that on October 8, 2004, more than a month prior to the appellants' submission of the November Report, PwC sent to the appellants' counsel via overnight mail additional copies of all of the Carello deposition transcripts and deposition exhibits, including those of Reynolds. After briefing and oral argument on January 28, 2005, the Superior Court granted PwC's motion to strike the Supplemental Report. In a bench ruling, the trial judge stated several reasons for his conclusion that no good cause had been shown to allow the submission of a supplemental expert's report. Those reasons included: (i) the undisputed fact that the appellants' expert, Goldstein, had received the Reynolds transcript in advance well in front of the [November 12] deadline; (ii) Goldstein's testimony under oath in April 2004 that he had already read the [Reynolds] deposition; (iii) the disruptive impact that the Supplemental Report would have had on the discovery schedule and on the production of PwC's auditing and accounting expert's report; (iv) appellants' counsel's knowledge, at the time he agreed to the deadline for expert reports, that the Carello depositions would be relevant for appellants' expert to review; and (v) the fact that the Supplemental Report was just dropped like a mini bomb into the legal landscape of this case without any prior telephone call to [defendant's] counsel to see if that would be a problem, without any motion to extend or revise the trial scheduling order to allow for later discovery. . . .