TChutima, Inc. v. Bua Group, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01130
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 TCHUTIMA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01130-JCM-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), Order 10] v. [Docket No. 55] 11} BUA GROUP, LLC, 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve a supplemental expert 14] report. Docket No. 55. The Court has not identified in that motion any standards for seeking leave 15] from the Court to supplement an expert report. See id. at 10, 11. Moreover, the governing rule 16] contemplates supplementation in appropriate circumstances without seeking judicial pre-approval. 17] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).! Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ 18] motion for leave to serve a supplemental expert report. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: January 7, 2025

Nancy J. Koppe, \ 22 United States Wvagistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 ' Such supplementation would be subject (if warranted) to the opposing party’s filing of a motion to exclude or other challenge. See, e.g., Silvagni v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 320 F.R.D. 237, 28] 240 n.1 (D. Nev. 2017).