Bernstein v. Virgin America, Inc., 15-cv-02277-JST (JSC). (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180130c31
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE Re: Dkt. Nos. 239, 240, 242 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . After reviewing the parties' separate letter briefs, and after having the benefit of oral argument on January 29, 2018, Defendant's motion to strike David Breashers' supplemental expert report is DENIED. The supplement corrects an error in the damages calculation in the original report based on a misinterpretation of some of Virgin's data. Plaintiffs were obligated to provide a supplemen
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE Re: Dkt. Nos. 239, 240, 242 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . After reviewing the parties' separate letter briefs, and after having the benefit of oral argument on January 29, 2018, Defendant's motion to strike David Breashers' supplemental expert report is DENIED. The supplement corrects an error in the damages calculation in the original report based on a misinterpretation of some of Virgin's data. Plaintiffs were obligated to provide a supplement..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 239, 240, 242
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.
After reviewing the parties' separate letter briefs, and after having the benefit of oral argument on January 29, 2018, Defendant's motion to strike David Breashers' supplemental expert report is DENIED. The supplement corrects an error in the damages calculation in the original report based on a misinterpretation of some of Virgin's data. Plaintiffs were obligated to provide a supplemental expert report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2); see also Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., 2015 WL 13037241 *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2015) ("Rule 26(e)(2) clearly envisions the possibility that an error could be made in an expert report that would come to light only after the expert's deposition"). And the supplement was timely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2), (3). Further, Virgin recognized the appropriateness of the supplement by offering to agree to its submission provided Plaintiffs agreed to allow it to call Mr. Newbold as a witness at trial. As Virgin rejected Plaintiffs' repeated offers to further depose Mr. Breashers, such relief is not proper now.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
