Eco Electrical Systems, LLC v. Reliaguard Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-00444
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Eco Electrical Systems v. Reliaguard, Judge Alsup limited expert-report supplementation, allowing updated 2021–2022 sales data but striking newly added damages periods.
The ruling directly governs Eco Electrical Systems, LLC’s damages report and the expert-disclosure process involving Reliaguard Inc. and the other defendants.
What happened
In Eco Electrical Systems, LLC v. Reliaguard Inc., the court considered how the plaintiff could update its damages expert’s report. The original report estimated sales for Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s use during the rest of 2021 and all of 2022 because actual data was not yet available.
The court allowed the plaintiff to replace those estimates with actual sales data for 2021 and 2022. But it ordered all additional damages periods to be removed from the report, explaining that supplementation is for correcting or updating existing information—not for creating a substantially revised expert report. The court said the plaintiff would need to file a formal motion to enlarge the damages period.
Judge William Alsup issued the memorandum opinion on March 14, 2023. The opinion does not state that a particular motion was granted or denied; it orders the limits on supplementation described above.
The detailed version
- Eco Electrical Systems, LLC v. Reliaguard Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-00444
- William Alsup
- Mar. 14, 2023
Background
The opinion addresses supplementation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), which governs updating disclosures and responses. Eco Electrical Systems, LLC’s damages expert had estimated sales for Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s use during the remainder of 2021 and all of 2022 because the expert report had been prepared in 2021. By March 2023, 2022 had ended, making actual sales data available.
Analysis
Judge Alsup explained that Rule 26(e) permits parties to correct mistakes and misleading omissions or to update information that could not previously be known. It does not permit a party to submit a substantially revised expert report or add claims and issues that should have appeared earlier. The court also emphasized that the case-management order established a schedule for addressing expert issues and that such schedules may be enforced absent good reasons to change them.
The court distinguished between updating existing estimates with newly available real data and adding new damages periods. It ruled that the plaintiff could update its report for 2021 and 2022 using actual sales data. The court ordered all additional periods to be stricken from the damages report and stated that this should be the only change. If the plaintiff wanted to enlarge the damages period, it would need to file a formal motion.
Disposition
The opinion orders the additional damages periods stricken and permits the plaintiff to replace its 2021 and 2022 estimates with actual data. It does not identify a formal motion or use the terms granted or denied for a motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.