United States District Court, D. Columbia
RALPH JACKSON, LINDA MATHIS, DONNA WARD, ROBERT CICCARELLI,
DONCHEZ COATES, WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER, SHARRON FOSTER, CHRIS
MUNDELL, TIFFANY CHERRY, Plaintiffs: JoAnn P. Myles, LEAD
ATTORNEY, LAW OFFICE OF JOANN P. MYLES, Largo, MD.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 922, Defendant: Diana M. Bardes,
Richard C. Welch, LEAD ATTORNEYS, MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON,
MURPHY & WELCH, P.C., Washington, DC.
WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 730, Defendant: John R
Mooney, LEAD ATTORNEY, MOONEY, GREEN, BAKER, SAINDON, PC,
Washington, DC; Lauren Brady Powell, MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON,
MURPHY & WELCH, P.C., Washington, DC.
GIANT FOOD LLC, Defendant: Amanda C. Dupree, Jonathan C.
Fritts, LEAD ATTORNEYS, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKUS LLP,
OPINION AND ORDER
E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge.
Jerome S. Paige is Plaintiffs' expert on economic loss.
Over a defense objection, the Court previously permitted him
to submit amended reports, even though they constituted his
third and fourth reports on the same topic. On July 8, 2015,
after a discussion of this issue at a status hearing, the
Court issued a Minute Order that, inter alia,
precluded Paige from issuing any further reports beyond those
four. Plaintiffs now ask the Court to revisit that ruling and
to permit him to yet again supplement his reports. As the
information he seeks to add was previously available and as
Paige has already been given several extra bites at the
apple, the Court will deny the Motion.
originally prepared a 78-page report, which was served on
Defendants on January 30, 2015. See Opp. at 1; Corrected
Reply (ECF No. 122) at 1. They conducted his deposition on
June 15, but, at the beginning of that proceeding, Paige
provided a modified report. See Opp. at 1; Corrected Reply at
2. On that same day, after the conclusion of the deposition,
Plaintiffs sent Defendants two new amended reports, and they
also indicated that Paige intended to produce another report
in the future. See Opp. at 2; Corrected Reply at 1 n.1. At a
status hearing on July 8, Defendants objected to these latest
amended reports, but the Court, to accommodate Plaintiffs,
permitted Paige to rely on the reports issued June 15. See
Minute Order of July 8, 2015. In fairness to Defendants, the
Court let them redepose Paige regarding those amended reports
and at Plaintiffs' expense. See id. The Court,
furthermore, expressly stated, " Plaintiffs' expert
may issue no further reports [beyond those of June 15]."
redeposition occurred on August 5 and concerned the amended
report provided at the original deposition, as well as the
two additional reports submitted later that same day. See
Opp. at 2. Plaintiffs have now filed a Motion for Leave to
File Supplemental Report -- i.e., a fifth report --
from the same expert. See ECF No. 111. Defendants, not
seeking leave to yet again supplement Paige's report,
Plaintiffs first argue that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(e)(1)(A) permits such supplementation, notwithstanding the
Court's July 8 Order proscribing further reports. They
are correct that Rule 26(e) governs supplementation of
discovery disclosures and responses. Rule 26(e)(1)(A)
concerns any disclosures (related to experts or not) under
Rule 26(a) and requires a party to " supplement or
correct its disclosure or response . . . in a timely manner
if the party learns that in some material respect the
disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect . . .
." Rule 26(e)(2), conversely, applies only to experts
and states: " For an expert whose report must be
disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the party's duty to
supplement extends both to information included in the report
and to information given during the expert's deposition.
Any additions or changes to this information must be
disclosed by the time the party's pretrial disclosures
under Rule 26(a)(3) are due." Plaintiffs thus assert
that they are doing no more than following the dictates of
rejoin that Paige is not merely supplementing his report, as
permitted by the Rule, but is instead attempting to
improperly bolster such report by correcting the flaws
highlighted in his August 5 deposition. See Opp. at ...