A federal court in New York recently granted a motion to exclude one expert report as untimely filed, but denied a motion to exclude another equally untimely report. Rekor Sys., Inc. v. Loughlin, 2022 WL 2063857 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2022). Rekor Systems alleged it was defrauded by the three defendants in its purchase of two franchised businesses. Before the close of discovery, Rekor made disclosures related to a damages expert and a forensic accountant. But after the scheduling order’s deadline for discovery, the defendants disclosed a damages expert and a franchising expert as “rebuttal” experts. Rekor moved the court to exclude the testimony of each.
The court excluded the franchising expert’s report but permitted that of the damages expert. The court first rejected defendants’ argument that the disclosure was timely under the Rules of Civil Procedure, holding the scheduling order setting a deadline for expert discovery to prevail over the default period established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). That rule provides that a party must disclose expert rebuttal witnesses within 30 days of the disclosure of the expert they will rebut—but also permits a court to modify the schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) requires that an expert whose testimony is not timely disclosed must be excluded unless the failure to timely disclose was substantially justified or harmless. The court found that the franchising expert’s testimony was largely irrelevant and failed to provide a rebuttal, but also that Rekor would be prejudiced by the belated disclosure were the franchising expert permitted to testify. Although the court recognized that Rekor would also be prejudiced by the admission of the damages expert’s testimony, it found this testimony to be sufficiently important to the case, and therefore reopened discovery on a limited basis to permit additional depositions of the expert and two fact witnesses upon whose declarations the damages expert’s report was based.
Justin litigates commercial disputes across the country on behalf of both corporations and individuals. He regularly counsels and represents some of the nation’s most prominent franchisors on matters central to the integrity ...
Jason Johnson is a trial and appellate attorney who represents clients involved in civil litigation and arbitration. Jason focuses his practice on franchise litigation, including antitrust, class actions, unfair competition ...
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.