On Second Thought: Supplementing Expert Reports
Many cases are won or lost on expert opinions. Expert retention is a subtle art, often representing one of the more significant and challenging investments a party makes in a litigation.
December 20, 2018 at 09:01 AM
5 minute read
![](https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/392/2018/12/Francesca-Robert-Article-201812181913.jpg)
Many cases are won or lost on expert opinions. Expert retention is a subtle art, often representing one of the more significant and challenging investments a party makes in a litigation. Volumes have been written on how attorneys should work with experts, how experts should be prepared, and how experts should provide their opinions during a lawsuit. Though the propriety of expert opinions and the methodologies they employ receive most of the attention—ask any lawyer or judge about Daubert or Frye, then brace yourself—what gets less consideration is the issue of when an expert opinion or report can be changed or supplemented. In the previous two years, the Southern District of Florida has addressed this topic in a manner that should serve as a warning to many litigants and their counsel.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires that “[a] party must make [expert witness] disclosures at the times and in the sequence the court orders.” An expert's report “must contain a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them,” as well as “the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them.” Rule 26(e) imposes a duty on an expert to supplement her report “in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure … is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” However, the ability to supplement or correct an expert opinion is not without exception, and it does not allow parties to be reactive in litigation or skirt court-ordered deadlines.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals “has been unequivocal … that a 'party cannot abuse Rule 26(e) to merely bolster a defective or problematic expert witness report.'” See Goins v. Carnival, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219151, *4 (S.D. Fla. March 3, 2017). In Goins, Florida's Southern District again echoed that it is within a federal court's discretion to sanction a party for the failure to comply with expert disclosure obligations. In that case, the court struck a supplemental expert report because it was served three months after the expert disclosure deadline and within 24 hours of the expert's deposition. The party disclosing the supplemental expert opinion cited to lingering discovery disputes and delayed witness depositions as the basis for supplying a supplemental report, but the court rejected those explanations as insufficient. The court observed the expert disclosure requirements of Rule 26 are designed to provide parties a reasonable opportunity to prepare for effective cross examination and, if necessary, arrange for expert testimony from other witnesses. A more recent case illustrates what can happen when a party attempts to label an initial opinion as a “supplemental” one.
In Tessina Holdings Pty. v. Trend, S.P.A., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171017 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2018), the Southern District Court encountered a more extreme version of the facts in Goins. There, the defendants had initially submitted a three-page rebuttal report that the court agreed was akin to “a notice of appearance for an expert,” largely because it provided no substantive analysis or calculations at all and was, in essence, a mere placeholder. Ten months later, at the rebuttal expert's deposition on the final day of discovery, the rebuttal expert offered what was labeled as a “supplemental report” that, for the first time, contained analysis and an opinion. The expert also testified that she was not given any documents to review until nearly nine months after her initial “report.” Following a hearing and detailed briefing on the issue, the magistrate judge recommended that the “supplemental” report be stricken and the opinions be excluded, ruling that Federal Rule 26 had been violated and that the delays were neither justified nor harmless under Rule 37.
While the striking of an expert report is a serious step and courts have discretion on the issue, there are some clear guidelines on how to avoid being left without an expert opinion. While it may seem obvious, timely seek an extension of time if your expert requires more time to investigate the facts and review bona fide documents that are legitimately necessary to render the expert opinion. If it becomes necessary to supplement the expert report at a later date, do so as expeditiously as possible in order to provide the other side with sufficient notice. An opposing party will need adequate time to analyze a supplemental report and confer with their own expert before discovery closes, and this is a significant factor for a court's determination on whether or not a supplemental report is prejudicial. You and your client will be thankful if you properly mind your expert.
Francesca Russo is a partner with the Miami intellectual property law firm of Espinosa Martinez. She may be reached at [email protected].
Robert R. Jimenez is an associate with the firm and may be reached at [email protected].
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Conversation Catalyst: Transforming Professional Advancement Through Strategic Dialogue Conversation Catalyst: Transforming Professional Advancement Through Strategic Dialogue](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/cc/43/b38dd9c34388b0bf5f2a720c8c65/brian-tannenbaum-767x633.jpg)
Conversation Catalyst: Transforming Professional Advancement Through Strategic Dialogue
5 minute read![SEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration SEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/4c/fb/ea229c724a0a98c1858b6112649f/silver-chase-767x633-1.jpg)
SEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration
6 minute read![Turning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being Turning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/dailybusinessreview/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/04/Rebecca-Palmer-767x633-2.jpg)
Turning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being
5 minute read![Four Things to Know About Florida’s New Law to Protect Minors Online Four Things to Know About Florida’s New Law to Protect Minors Online](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/ac/5a/3196ba1c42a48ab3c0259cfcce88/hartsfield-martinez-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1Pistachio Giant Wonderful Files Trademark Suit Against Canadian Maker of Wonderspread
- 2New York State Authorizes Stand-Alone Business Interruption Insurance Policies
- 3Buyer Beware: Continuity of Coverage in Legal Malpractice Insurance
- 4‘Listen, Listen, Listen’: Some Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse
- 5BCLP Joins Saudi Legal Market with Plans to Open Two Offices
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250