U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif.,, who heard arguments on the request on Tuesday, found that the expert’s report this month came four months after the deadline and following the close of expert discovery in the case.
“The umbrella term ‘software defects’ cannot be used to inject into the litigation an entirely new defect at this late date,” he wrote. “The record seems clear that Plaintiffs’ software experts continued to review source code after their deadlines and found additional evidence to formulate new opinions. Although these strengthen Plaintiffs’ litigation position, that alone does not justify denying the Motion to Strike.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
