Pacific Steel Group v. Commercial Metals Company
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-07683
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Pacific Steel Group v. Commercial Metals Company, Judge Gilliam denied CMC’s request to strike expert reports after finding no meaningful prejudice from late disclosures.
Pacific Steel Group, Commercial Metals Company and its subsidiaries, and their experts, Dr. Patrick Kennedy and Dr. Ramsey Shehadeh.
What happened
Pacific Steel Group filed a reply report from its expert, Dr. Patrick Kennedy, that included new analyses and calculations. Commercial Metals Company and its subsidiaries responded with a declaration from their expert, Dr. Ramsey Shehadeh. The court had previously found that CMC was justified in filing that response so it could address Kennedy’s new material.
CMC asked the court to strike both experts’ opinions, arguing that Kennedy’s new material violated the disclosure rules and that removing both reports would narrow the issues and save trial time. Pacific Steel Group acknowledged that its disclosure was late but argued that it caused no harm and that striking the opinions was unnecessary.
The court denied CMC’s request to strike the reports. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. found that CMC had not identified actual prejudice, that both sides were on equal footing because CMC could present Shehadeh’s response, and that allowing the opinions would not meaningfully disrupt trial. The court said it would later consider whether Pacific Steel Group should pay CMC’s costs for preparing its response.
The detailed version
- Pacific Steel Group v. Commercial Metals Company · No. 4:20-cv-07683
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 16, 2024
Background
Pacific Steel Group filed a reply report from its expert, Dr. Patrick Kennedy. The court previously determined that the reply report included new analyses and calculations that had not been disclosed earlier, violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Commercial Metals Company and its subsidiaries, collectively called CMC, then filed a supplemental declaration from their expert, Dr. Ramsey Shehadeh, responding to that material. The court had previously found that CMC’s filing was substantially justified as a matter of fairness.
The court later directed the parties to explain why it should not strike both Kennedy’s new analyses and Shehadeh’s response. CMC asked the court to strike both sets of opinions. Pacific Steel Group argued that any late disclosure was harmless and that striking the opinions was unnecessary.
Discussion
Rule 37 generally prevents a party from relying on expert testimony that was not timely disclosed under Rule 26 unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. Courts consider factors including prejudice or surprise, the ability to cure any prejudice, possible disruption of trial, and whether the late disclosure was made in bad faith or willfully.
The court reiterated that Kennedy’s reply report violated Rule 26 because it contained new analyses and calculations. But the court found that CMC had not identified any specific prejudice from allowing Kennedy to testify about those opinions. CMC had been allowed to present Shehadeh’s responsive opinions, putting the parties on equal footing. Although neither side had deposed the opposing expert about the new filings and trial was approaching, the court found that those circumstances affected both parties equally. It concluded that allowing both experts to testify would not meaningfully disrupt trial or harm either party.
Ruling
The court denied CMC’s request to strike Kennedy’s reply report and Shehadeh’s response, Docket No. 355. The court did not exclude the opinions under Rule 37. It left open whether another sanction might be appropriate, including requiring Pacific Steel Group to reimburse CMC for the reasonable costs of preparing its response. The court stated that it would decide that issue before the case concluded.
Judge
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order on October 16, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.