LinTech Global, Inc. v. CAN Softtech, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Michigan·Decided April 23, 2021·No. 2:19-cv-11600·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINTECH GLOBAL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:19-cv-11600 v. Honorable Linda V. Parker

CAN SOFTTECH, INC., and SWAPNA REDDYGARI,

Defendants,

And

CAN SOFTTECH, INC.,

Counter-Plaintiff,

v.

Counter-Defendant. _______________________________/

ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DESIGNATION

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to permit it to designate J. Stott Matthews as a testimonial expert regarding the alleged spoliation of digital evidence by Defendants. (ECF No. 127.) Defendants contend that the Court should not grant Plaintiff’s request because the deadline for disclosing testifying experts was September 11, 2020 and Plaintiff knew it might need this testimony well before this cutoff date. (ECF No. 126 at Pg. ID 2426, 2428.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) requires a court to prohibit the late disclosure of a witness “unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” To assess whether a party’s late disclosure is “substantially justified”

or “harmless,” courts consider five factors: “(1) the surprise to the party against whom the evidence would be offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the surprise; (3) the extent to which allowing the evidence would disrupt the trial; (4) the importance of the evidence; and (5) the nondisclosing party’s explanation for

its failure to disclose the evidence.” Howe v. City of Akron, 801 F.3d 718, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff argues that (i) “Defendants should not be surprised by [Matthews’]

expert testimony—or the timing of it—given that Defendants only recently raised highly-technical arguments pertaining to software”; (ii) any surprise can be cured by allowing Defendants to designate a rebuttal expert and submit a rebuttal expert report; (iii) extending discovery would not disrupt trial because a trial has not yet

been scheduled; (iv) “[Matthews] is critical to rebutting Defendants’ claim of [Plaintiff having] exclusive control over key Business Skype communications between Reddygari and the FAA”; and (iv) Plaintiff did not disclose earlier

because it was not until February 27, 2021 that “Defendants, for the first time, took the position that [Plaintiff] was under exclusive control of Reddygari’s Business Skype Communications,” despite Defendants’ alleged “digital spoliation and

[Plaintiff’s] efforts to recover documents destroyed by Defendants.” (ECF No. 127 at Pg. ID 2436, 2443.) A review of Defendants’ response brief does not suggest that Defendants are

surprised by Plaintiff’s attempt to introduce this expert testimony. (See ECF No. 126 at Pg. ID 2430-31.) Even if Defendants are surprised, Defendants’ request that, “if the Court permits [Matthews] to testify,” “Defendants should be given the same opportunit[y] . . . [to] present expert testimony on [the] subject[],” appears to

concede that the surprise can be cured. (Id. at Pg. ID 2431-32.) And while Defendants take issue with Plaintiff’s explanation for its failure to disclose because “[Plaintiff] has known about and had power over the laptops and allegedly deleted

emails and FAA Skype messages for nearly two years,” Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s contention that the evidence is important and allowing the evidence would not disrupt trial. (Id. at Pg. ID 2430-31.) For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s late disclosure is

harmless. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to designate J. Stott Matthews as a testimonial expert is GRANTED and Plaintiff shall submit an expert report within

21 days of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may designate a rebuttal expert within 40 days of this Order and submit a rebuttal expert report within 60

days of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the expert discovery deadline is July 9, 2021. Dispositive motions are due 21 days after the close of expert witness discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April 23, 2021

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LinTech Global, Inc. v. CAN Softtech, Inc., (E.D. Mich. 2021).

LinTech Global, Inc. v. CAN Softtech, Inc. (LinTech Global, Inc. v. CAN Softtech, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

William Howe v. City of Akron
801 F.3d 718 (Sixth Circuit, 2015)