All-Tag Corporation v. Checkpoint Systems, Incorporated, No. 9:2017cv81261 - Document 276 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER granting [236/239] Defendant's Motion to Strike the Supplemental Report of Dr. Graeme Hunter and [237/240] Motion to Strike the Supplemental Report of Patrick O'Leary. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 10/9/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
All-Tag Corporation v. Checkpoint Systems, Incorporated Doc. 276 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLOM DA CaseN o.9:l7-cv-8lz6l-D im itrouleasN aûhewm an A ll-Tag Cop ., FILED BY Plaintiff, D.C . 1 . VS. 02I 2, S 2219 CheckpointSystem s,Inc., ANGELA E.NOBLE CLERK U S DIST.CX s.o.oF/L. :.-w.p.B. Defendant. / O R DER G R AN TIN G D EFEN DA NT CH EC K PO IN T'S M O TIO N T O ST RIK E TH E SUPPLEM ENTAL REPORT OF DR.GRAEM E HUNTER fDE 236/2391AND M OTION TO STRIKE THE SUPPLEM ENTAL REPORT OF PATRICK O 'LEARY IDE 237/2401 TH IS CA U SE isbefore the Courton two m otionsûled by D efendantCheckpointSystem s, Inc.Both relate to the supplem entalreports oftwo ofPlaintiff A ll-Tag Corp.'s expertw itnesses, Dr.Graeme Hunter and Patrick O'Leary.The first(DE 236/239)seeksto'strike Dr.Hunter's supplementalreport(thefll-lunterM otiontoStrike''),andthesecond (DE 237/2404seekstostrike M r.O'Leary'ssupplementalreport(theçto'lwearyM otiontoStrike').Thesematterswerereferred to the tmdersigned by United StatesDistrictJudge W illiam P.Dimitrouleas.(DE 51j.Plaintiff respondedtoDefendant'smotionson October1and2,2019.(DE 245/254,246/2561.Defendant repliedtoPlaintiff'sresponseson October7,2019.gDE 268/272,269/2734.Thus,thismatterisripe . forreview .Forthe reasons setforth below ,the CourtGR AN TS both m otionsto strike. 1.B ackground The history and current procedural posture of this case is im portant to the Court's determ ination ofthe tw o pending m otions.This case w as filed on N ovem ber 17,2017,alm osttw o yearsago.(DE 1).OnM ay4,2018,theCourtenteredaschedulingordersettingthetrialperiodin thiscaseforJanuary6,2020,withadiscoverycutoffdateofSeptember6,2019.(DE 43).OnApril 4,2019,theCourtenteredanorder(DE 104)settingthefollowingexpertdisclosuredeadlines: Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff'sExpertReportandDisclosures D efendant'sExpertReportand Disclosures R ebuttalExpertReports ExpertD iscovery Cutoff Jtme21,2019 Jtm e 22,2019 A ugpst5,2019 Septem ber 11,2019 On M ay 18,2018,the Courtam ended itspriorscheduling order,keeping the sam e trialdate andpre-trialschedule,butincludinganotationtoreflectthecorrectpaired magistratejudge.(DE 51j.On June 5,2019,the Courtextended the discovery cut-off9om September 11,2019,to September18,2019.gDE 1644.Thereafter,thepartiesagreedto,andtheCourtadoptedandordered (DE 1671,thefollowingamendedexpertdisclosuredeadlines: Affirm ative ExpertR eports Com pletion ofD epositions ofA 11Experts RebuttalExpertReports Com pletion ofD epositionsofRebuttalExperts Factand ExpertD iscovery Cutoff July 17,2019 August9,2019 , August23,2019 Septem ber 18,2019 Septem ber 18,2019 Thus, it is im portant to the CoM 's determ ination of the parties' tw o pending m otions adclressed in this Order that the expertdiscovery deadlines have passed,discovery is closed, substantive pre-trialmotionsare due October 11,2019,Daubertmotionsare due 60 daysbefore thestal' tofthetrial'stwo-weekperiod,andthetrialperiodbeginsJanuary6,2020.gDE 511. Further, thiscasehasbeen ext hrem ely and unnecessarily litigious,especially in thediscovery phase.Theparties(andcertainnon-partiesfrom whom discoverywassought)havefiledcountless discovery m otions,responses,and replies,m any underseal.TheCourt,in an effortto gettheparties to cooperate,has required the parties to file numerousjointnotices regarding the ntlmerous discovery disputes.To keep thiscase on track,thetmdersigned hasheld lengthy discovery headngs onNovember30,2018(DE 734,M ay6,2019 (DE 131q,M ay15,2019(DE 1441,Jtme6,2019(DE 1651,August23,2019 (DE 200j,andSeptember23,2019(DE 2324. N ot cotmting this Order,the Courthas had to enter no less than 13 substantive discovery orders(DES75,104,122,132,134,143,147,164,166,167,168,263,and265j,andnolessthan 34procedural'discoveryorders(DES65,68,99,100,107,109,i11,115,119,129,137,138,148, 2 155,156,160,190,192,194,198,204,2J0,219,221,225,226,238,243,251,252,253,260,261, and264). These are the parties'third and fourth m otionsto strike.See D Es 216,205-1/223,237/239, and 236/240.On October7,2019,the Cotu'tgranted in partand denied in pal'ta m otion to strike by D efendant Checkpoint concem ing D r. Hunter's rebuttal report, finding that Section IV of llis rebuttalreportcontained affinnative opinionsproduced wellpastthe afsrmative expertreport deadline,and denied a second m otion to strike Plaintiff A ll-Tag's am ended Rule 26 disclosures. (DES263and265j.DespitethispriorCourtorderregardingDr.Hunter'stestimony,theCourtfinds itself having to yetagain w ade into a discovery dispute aboutone ofD r.H tm ter's expertreports, excepttllis tim e accom panied by a dispute concem ing M r.O 'Leary's supplem entalexpertreport. W ith thisbackground in m ind,the Courtnow turnsto the tw o pending m otions to strike. ll.DisputesU nderlying Each M otion to Strike Regarding Dr.Htmter'ssupplementalreport,DefendantarguestheCoul'tshould strikeitas it(1)containsnew,affirmativeopinionsand (2)improperly rebutstherebuttalreportofoneof Defendant'sexpertwitnesses,Dr.CelesteSaravia.Inresponse,Plaintiffcontends(1)Dr.Hunter wasperm itted to supplem enthisinitialreportbased on new inform ation obtained through discovery afterhisinitialreportwasservedonJuly 17,2019and(2),relyingonFed.R.Civ.P.26(e)(2),that hisSeptem ber18,2019,supplem entalreportwastimelybecause itwasactually noteven dueuntil 30 daysbefore trial(which would be December 6,2019),ratherthan by the July 17,2019, aftirm ative expertreportdeadline orthe August23,2019,rebuttalreportdeadline. Ttm ling to M r. O 'Leary's supplem ental report, D efendant Checkpoint argues it (Gis untetheredinanywayto''hisinitialexpertreport,tsandisthusaprejudiciallylatenew aftirmative opinionl.j''(DE 237,p.3).PlaintiffAll--fag repeatsmuch ofthe same argtunents itmakesin response to the H tmter M otion to Strike.M r. O 'Leary's supplem ental report is not im proper, Plaintiffargues,because it(Gcitesm aterialand inform ation thatw as only available to M r.O 'Leary ajterhisinitialreportwasfiled''onJuly17,2019.(DE 245,p.4)(emphasisinoriginal). 111.A nalysis a.HunterM otiontoStrike(DE 236/2391 D r.Hunter'spurported supplem entalreportisa clearviolation ofthe Court'sJtm e 7,2019, Order(DE 167jamending theexpertdiscovery deadlinein tlliscase.ThatOrder,which merely approved and m ade officialthe parties'own agreem ent,required the parties to serve each other with their initialaffirmative expertreportsby July 17,2019,and theirrebuttalreports by A ugust 23,2019.fJ.atp.2.The parties w ere then perm itted to depose each other's rebuttalexperts by the close ofthe discovery on Septem ber 18,2019.f#.Sim ple enough. But notfor Plaintiff.Instead,Plaintiff first atlem pted to im properly sneak an affinuative expertopinion into D r.H tm ter's rebuttalreport.See D E 263.The Courtordered that affinuative opinionstricken onOctober7,2019.fJ.Thatshouldhavebeentheendofthem atter.N ow,Plaintiff, inviolationoftheCourt'sJune7,2019,OrdergDE 1671,insertstheexactsameaffinuativeopinion theCourtorderedstrickeninitspriorOrder(DE 2632intoanew tGsupplemental''reportfiledwell aftereitherthe July 17,2019,affirmative expertreportdepdline orthe August23,2019,rebuttal expertrepol'tdeadline. UnderFed.R.Civ.P.26(e),partiesmustsupplementanexpert'sreportf'inatimelymarmer iftheparty learnsthatin som em aterialaspectthe disclosure ofresponse isincom pleteorincorrect'' and the additionalor corrective infonnation m ust tinot Otherwise been m ade know n to the other partiesduringthediscoveryprocessorinwritingE.q''Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatpartiescan belatedly add new opinions oruntim ely rebuttalopinionsunderthe guise ofsupplem entalreports. (GBecause the expertw itness discovery rules are designed to allow both sides in a case to preparetheircasesadequately and to preventsup rise ...com pliance w ith the requirem entsofRule 4 26isnotmerelyaspirational.''Cooperv.SouthernCo.,390F.3d695,728(11thCir.2004)(internal citationsomitted).Fed.R.Civ.P.37(c)(1)instructsthatwhere1$apartyfailstoprovideinformation . . . asrequiredby Rule26(a)or(e),theparty isnotallowedtousethatinformation orwitness... unlessthefailurewassubstantiallyjustifiedorharmless.''See,e.g.,Potishv.R.J ReynoldsTobacco Co.,9:15-cv-81171,2017W L 5952892,at*2-4(S.D.Fla.Nov.30,2017);Managed CareSols., Inc.v.EssentHealthcare,Inc.,09-cv-60351,2010W L 1837724,at*3 (S.D.Fla.M ay 3,2010). Theburden ofshowingthatafailureto discloseorcomplywassubstantiallyjustifiedorharmless ison thenon-disclosingparty.M itchellv.Ford Motor Co.,318Fed.Appx.821,824 (11th Cir. 2009).Exclusionisalsoan appropriateremedyunderFed.R.Civ.P.16(b),which authorizesthe courtto controland expedite pretrialdiscovery through a scheduling orderand givesthe courtbroad discretion to preserve the integrity and purpose of a pretrial order, including the exclusion of evidence.Companhia Energetic Potiguarv.CaterpillarInc.,N o.14-cv-24277,2016 W L 3102225, at*5(S.D.Fla.June2,2016). Courts have broad discretion to exclude tmtim ely-disclosed expert reports, even ones 1 designated asSGsupplem ental''reports.1d.;see also,e.g.,Cook v.RoyalCaribbean Cruises,N o.11- cv-20732,2012W L2319089(S.D.Fla.June15,2012);GoodbysCreek,LLC v.ArchIns.Co.,No. 7-cv-0947,2009 W L 1139575,at*2 (M .D.Fla.Apr.27,2009).PartiesthuscarmotabuseRule 26(e)anduse asupplementalreportto tçmerely bolsteradefectiveorproblematicexpertwitness report.''CaterpillarInc.,2016W L 3102225,at*6.Rule26(e)(iisnotadevicetoallow aparty's expertto engage in additionalw ork,or to armulopinions oroffer new onesto perfecta litigating strategy.''Cochranv,TheBrinkmann Corp.,No.8-cv-1790,2009W L 4823858,at*5 (N.D.Ga. Dec.9,2009),aff'd by,381Fed.Appx.968 (11th Cir.2020).The only pupose ofRule 26(e) supplem entation is çlfor the narrow purpose ofcorrecting inaccuracies oradding inform ation that . w as notavailable atthe tim e ofthe initialreport.''Potish,2017 W L 5952892,at*3. The Court's decision in Potish is instructive here.There,the Courtordered the parties to file their expertdisclosures by Septem ber 26,2017.1d.N evertheless,the plaintiff w aited until N ovem ber 13,2017,to file the supplem entalreportof one ofits witnesses.1d.Thatsupplem ental reportStsignificantly changed from a generic opinion regarding the tobacco industry to one w hich applied directly to the decedent''plaintiffw as representing.f#.at4.Thus,the Courtfound thatthe expert's additions in his supplementalre 'port'twere notto correctany existing infonuation, but ratherto bolsterthe existing opinion and includeim perm issibleopinionsafterthe expertdisclostlres deadline.''1d The Courthasvery carefully reviewed both Dr.Hunter'sinitialaffirm ativereportand llis PUTPorted (Gsupplem ental''reportand concludesthatD r.Hunter'sItsupplem ental''reportis a direct and untim ely rebuttalto the rebuttalreportofD efendantCheckpoint's expertwitnessD r.Saravia, not a m ere supplem entation ofhis prior report.lLike the çssupplem ental''reportstnzck in Potish, D r.H unter's tdsupplem ental''reportw as Sinot to correct any existing intbrm ation, but rather to bolster the existing opinion and include im perm issible opinions after the expert disclosures deadline.''1d. H aving concluded D r. H unter's Sûsupplem ental'' report w as tm tim ely, the Court m ust considerwhatremedytoimpose.PlaintiffAll-Tagarguesitwassubstantiallyjustifiedin thinking itcouldsupplementitsekpertreportsatsuchalatedatebecauseFed.R.Civ.P.26(e)(2)provides thata party'ssupplem entsiûm ustbedisclosed by the tim e theparty'spretrialdisclosuresunderRule 26(a)(3) are due.''Thus,under Rule 26(a)(3),which instnlcts that (tfulnless the courtorders othenvise,thesedisclojuresmustbem adeatleast30 daysbeforetrialy''Plaintiffcontendsitcould i 80th Dr. Hunter's initialaffirm ative reportand his (tsupplem ental''reportwere filed under sealin supportof D efendant'sm otion.See DE 239-2,239-3.ln lightoftheirsealed status,theCourtw illnotgo into detailaboutthe differencesbetweenDr.Hunter'saffirm ativereportandhisttsupplem ental''report.N onetheless,even acursoryreview ofthe repol' tsm akes itabundantly clearthatD r.Hunter's fssupplemental''repol 'tcontainsnum erousuntim ely rebuttal opinionsdirectlyattackingD r.Saravia'srebuttalreport. 6 supplem ent its çxpert reports until 30 days before trial in this m atter. Plaintiff's position is m isguided and w rong. PlaintiffandDefendantspecificallyagreedto,andtheCourtorderedandadopted(DE 1671, specific expertdiscovery deadlines.The parties did notpropose or agree to,and the Court's Order never pennitted,a Ctstlr-rebuttal''date.The last date for producing a rebuttal expert reportw as August9,2019 gDE 1671,andyetboth ofPlaintiff'sexperts'supplementalreportswereproduced on the evening of Septem ber 18,2019,the very lastday ofdiscovery.Plaintiff's attem ptto rem ite thehistory ofthiscase,disregard itsagreed-to and Court-imposed expertdisclosure deadlines,and then argueDr.Htmter'sttsupplemental''reportwysnotdueuntil30daysbeforetheJanuary 6,2020, trialdate(thatis,December6,2019)isflatlyrejected.zNorisPlaintiff'sen'orhnnnless.Discovery in thiscase hasclosed.Ifthis Courtw ereto pennitPlaintiffto rely upon itsuntim ely supplem ental expertreport,then itw ould have to 1etDefendantengage in furtherw ork and discovery to allow its expertto respond,thereby stalling and delaying thiscase.Thiscase hasbeen pending foralm ost tw o years.Itis tim e for the discovery and expertdisclosure stage ofthis case to be closed so the Courtcan focus on substantive m otions and trial. Thisisthe secondtim ePlaintiffA ll-Taghastried to sneak in D r.H tmter'saffnnative expert opinion bylabelingitsom ethingitisnot.Therequltisthesam e.Dr.Hunter's(Gsupplem ental''report served on September 18,2019,ishereby stricken.Plaintiffmay notrely upon orotherwise use, either directly orindirectly,the Supplem entalExpertR eportofGraem e H unter,PIA.D .atany point in thiscase,including in dispositivem otions,responses,or attrial. 2Plaintiffsargumentthatitcouldproduceitssupplementalexpertreport30daysbeforetriàlrunscountertotheCourt's AmendedSchedulingOrderEDE 511,whichrequiresal1Daubertmotionstobefiled60daysbeforecalendarcall,that is,on orbeforeNovem ber3,20l9.Plaintiff'sm isguided argumentwouldm eanthatthepartiescouldfilesupplemental expel' treportsaperthedeadlineforGlingDaubertmotions.Thisargumentdefieslogicand commonsenseandis rejected. 7 b.O'Leary M otion to S' trike rDE 237/2401 ThefactsunderlyingtheO'LearyM otiontoStrike(DE 237/240)arelargelythesameand, thus, so is the result. M r. O 'Leary's (çsupplem ental'' report contains untim ely and im proper affirmativeopinionsinviolationoftheCourt'spriorOrder(DE 1674andwillbestricken. Asstatedabove,Rule26(e)(tijn0tadevicetoallow aparty'sexperttoengageinadditional w ork,orto annulopinions or offer new onesto perfecta litigating strategy.''Cochran,2009 W L 4823858,at*5.Theonly purpose ofRule26(e)supplementation isSsforthenanow purposeof correcting inaccuraciesoradding inform ation thatw >snotavailable atthetim e oftheinitialreport.'' Potish,2017 W L 5952892,at*3.M r.O 'Leary's supplem entalreportw entfarbeyond thattsnarrow PY9 CS0.'' The Courthasvery carefully reviewed both ofM r.O'Leary's expertreports.The Court need notgo into detailregarding the differences between M . 1..O 'Leary's initialaffirm ative expert report and his new so-called tisupplem ental''report.A sim ple com parison of the two reports is enough.SM r. O 'Leary'sinitialàffirm ative expertreportw asserved on July 17,2019 and generally opined on D efendantCheckpoint's alleged false advertising alzd m arketing.H is çssupplem ental'' report,by contrast,w as sezved on Septem bez18,2019,and offers a hostofeithernew ,affirm ative opinionsoropinionsm eantto rebutthose ofDr.Saravia. W ith respectto M r.O 'Leary'sdûsupplem ental''report,PlaintiffA ll-Tag repeatsm uch ofthe same substantialjustification and harmlessness arglimentsthatitmade regarding Dr.Htmter's sim ilarly untim ely and im properdçsupplem ental''report.Plaintiffand Defendantspecifically agreed to,andtheCourtorderedandadopted (DE 1671,specificexpertdiscovery deadlines.lfPlaintiff needed m ore tim e to produce its expertopinions,itshould have soughtrelieffrom those deadlines 3 Both M r.O'Leary's initialaffirm ative reportand his ç<supplemental''reportwere filed undersealin supportof D efendant'sm otion.See DE 239-2,239-3.In lightoftheirsealed status,theCourtw illnotgo into detailaboutthe differences between M r.O'Leary'saftsrm ative reportand histfsupplem ental''report. (deadlines itagreed to)from the Court.ltdid not.lnstead,Plaintiff tried to squeeze in new affinnative and rebuttal opinions m asked as tdsupplem ental''reports in direct violation of its agreementwithDefendantandthisCourt'spriorOrder(DE 1674. M. 1..O 'Leary's çtsupplem entalreport''served on Septem ber 18,2019, is hereby stricken. Plaintiffm ay notrely upon orotherwise use,eitherdirectly orindirectly,the Supplem entalExpert ReportofPatrick O'Leary atany pointinthiscase,includingin dispositivem otions,responses,or attrial. lV .C onclusion Based on the foregoing,itis hereby O R DER ED that: 1. D efendant Checkpoint's M otion to Strike Untim ely tçsupplem entalExpertReportof GraemeHunter,Ph.D.''Served September18,2019 (DE 236/2394isGRANTED,as follow s: The Supplem entalExpertReportofGraem e H tm ter,Ph.D .isstricken.Plaintiffm ay notrely upon orotherwiseuse,eitherdirectly orindirectly,the Supplem entalExpert R eportof Graem e H unter,PIA.D .at any point in this case,including in dispositive m otions,responses,orattrial. Defendant Checkpoint's M otion to Strike U ntim ely dçsupplem ental ExpertReportof PatrickO'Leary''ServedSeptember18,2019gDE 237/2404isGRANTED,asfollows: The Supplem entalReportofPatrick O 'Leary is stricken.Plaintiffm ay notrely upon or otherwise use,either directly or indirectly,the Supplem entalExpertReportof Patrick O 'Leary at any point in this case, including in dispositive m otions, responses,or attrial. 9 DO E and ORDERED in chambersatW estPalm Beach,Palm Beach County,Florida, this 1 zayofoctober,2019. . J#.-*- W ILLIAM M AT 11EW * United StatesM agistrateJudge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
