Pacific Steel Group v. Commercial Metals Company

I. BACKGROUND

18 In response to a reply report Pacific Steel filed on behalf of its expert, Dr. Patrick Kennedy 19 (“Dr. Kennedy”), CMC filed a supplemental “Declaration” of its expert, Dr. Ramsey Shehadeh 20 (“Dr. Shehadeh”), arguing that such a response was allowed because Dr. Kennedy’s reply 21 “presented updated and wholly new calculations and methods.” Dkt. 190-14, Ex. 12 at ¶ 1. 22 Pacific Steel moved to strike Dr. Shehadeh’s declaration as an expert sur-reply report filed in 23 violation of the Court’s Scheduling Order. Dkt. 205 at 3. The Court denied the motion to strike, 24 finding that the filing of Dr. Shehadeh’s declaration was substantially justified as a matter of basic 25 fairness so that CMC could respond to the “entirely new, previously undisclosed analyses and 26 calculations” included in Dr. Kennedy’s reply report. See Dkt. No. 349 at 9–10. In its order, the 27 Court also directed the parties to submit simultaneous briefs explaining why the Court should not strike both the new analyses in Dr. Kennedy’s reply report and Dr. Shehadeh’s response. See id. at 10, fn. 3. On October 11, 2024, the Court heard oral argument from the parties and took the…