`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393 (LO/TCB)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendants.
`______________________________________ )
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, et al.,
`
`ORDER
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Altria Client
`
`Services LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A.’s (“Defendants”)
`
`Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Expert Reports. (Dkt. 579.) Defendants filed their
`
`motion on April 30, 2021 and set it for a hearing on May 7, 2021. Plaintiffs/Counterclaim
`
`Defendants RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Plaintiffs”) filed
`
`an opposition to Defendants’ motion on May 5, 2021 (Dkt. 593) and Defendants filed a reply on
`
`May 6, 2021 (Dkt. 594). Finding oral argument unnecessary, the undersigned determines that
`
`Defendants have shown good cause to supplement the two expert reports at issue.
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides the proper standard here. Rule 16
`
`states that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The ‘good cause’ standard focuses on the timeliness of the amendment
`
`to the scheduling order and the reasons for its tardy submission; the primary consideration is the
`
`diligence of the moving party.” United States v. 1.604 Acres of Land, No. 10-cv-320, 2011 WL
`
`1810594, at *2 (E.D. Va. May 11, 2011) (internal quotations omitted); see also Cook v. Howard,
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 600 Filed 05/07/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 13736
`
`484 F. App’x 805, 815 (4th Cir. 2012) (“the good-cause standard will not be satisfied if the
`
`district court concludes that the party seeking relief (or the party’s attorney) has not acted
`
`diligently in compliance with the schedule.”).
`
`Here, Defendants seek leave to supplement the opening expert reports of Paul Meyer and
`
`Dr. John Abraham. Defendants served their supplemental reports on April 26, 2021 pursuant to
`
`this Court’s order imposing an April 26, 2021 deadline for the parties experts to “identify
`
`citations to fact testimony to support already-disclosed opinions[.]” (Dkts. 534, 535.) Further,
`
`Plaintiffs contend that they do “not [oppose] the majority of additions Defendants introduced in
`
`their seven supplemental expert reports served on April 26” and only contest two of the
`
`additions. (Dkt. 593 at 5.) Specifically, Plaintiffs oppose the addition of a single footnote and
`
`five attachments to Mr. Meyer’s report and limited supplementation to Dr. Abraham’s report. It
`
`is clear from this Court’s prior order and Plaintiffs’ acceptance of the majority of Defendants’
`
`supplementations, that the parties contemplated supplementing their reports, and Defendants did
`
`so diligently and in compliance with the parties jointly proposed deadline of April 26, 2021.
`
`Additionally, pursuant to the parties’ proposed modified scheduling order, which the
`
`Court approved, expert depositions are set to take place from April 28 through May 12 and the
`
`final pretrial conference is not until May 21, 2021. (See Dkts. 534, 535, 566.) Accordingly, there
`
`is ample time for Plaintiffs to complete expert depositions prior to the final pretrial conference.
`
`For the reasons explained above, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Expert Reports
`
`(Dkt. 579) is GRANTED. Defendants are permitted leave to serve the supplemental opening
`
`expert reports of Paul Meyer and Dr. John Abraham.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 600 Filed 05/07/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 13737
`
`ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2021.
`
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`/s/
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
