Order | Filed: August 04, 2026
| Entered: August 04, 2026
Loiseau v. Bozzuto's Inc
Civil Rights: Jobs | Connecticut
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
ORDER finding as moot 227 Defendants' Motion for Relief from Expert Deadlines. On January 17, 2024, the Hon. Janet C. Hall entered a scheduling order (1) directing the plaintiffs to "disclose experts and submit initial reports by July 5, 2024;" (2) directing the defendants to "disclose experts and submit initial reports by August 12, 2024;" (3) directing the plaintiffs "to disclose rebuttal experts and submit rebuttal reports by September 12, 2024;" and (4) directing the defendants to "disclose rebuttal experts and submit reports by October 1, 2024." (ECF No. 61.) In early 2026, the defendants notified the plaintiffs that they planned to serve another expert report. This revealed a disagreement over the order at ECF No. 61. The plaintiffs contended that the deadlines in that order encompassed all expert reports, but the defendants contended that they encompassed only initial and rebuttal reports, leaving the disclosure of trial-ready expert reports to be governed by the default provisions of Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(i). (See Ex. 8 to Decl. of G. Maatman, ECF No. 228-9.)
By mid-February, 2026, the defendants would have needed a deadline extension either way. If the plaintiffs were right about the order at ECF No. 61, the defendants' deadline would have lapsed over a year before. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) (stating that, when the court sets a deadline in a scheduling order for expert disclosures, the "party must make these disclosures at the times and in the sequence that the court orders"). But even if the defendants were right about the order, another expert report still would have been untimely in mid-February, because the parties were then less than ninety days away from trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(i) (stating that, when the deadline for expert disclosures is not governed by a stipulation or court order, "the disclosures must be made&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp. at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial"); (see also ECF No. 224) (scheduling the final pretrial conference for April 1, 2026 and jury selection for May 4, 2026). The defendants therefore filed the instant "motion for relief from expert deadlines" on February 11, 2026, arguing that the Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(i) deadline applied and should be extended, but also arguing in the alternative that even if the order at ECF No. 61 applied, the deadline still should be extended because the defendants satisfied the "good cause" requirement for a scheduling order amendment under Rule 16. (See generally Defs.' Memo. of L. in Supp. of Mot. for Relief from Expert Deadlines, ECF No. 228.) One of the defendants' principal arguments for "good cause" was that the earlier expert reports had been made obsolete by subsequent developments. (See id. at 3-4) (noting that the plaintiffs' class certification motion proposed a different class definition than the one that had been in view when initial expert reports were served, and noting that Judge Hall's certification ruling defined the class further still).
The plaintiffs opposed the motion (ECF No. 235), and the Court heard argument on February 25, 2026. (See ECF No. 237.) While the Court had the motion under advisement, however, several other case developments occurred. On February 25, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking approval of their proposed form of class notice and plan for notice dissemination, which the defendants opposed. (ECF No. 238). On March 10, 2026, the defendants filed a motion seeking approval of their form of trial plan, which included extensions of witness and exhibit disclosure deadlines to account for the fact that class opt-outs had yet to be identified. (ECF No. 242.) Perhaps most importantly for purposes of this motion, on March 11, 2026, Judge Hall vacated the pre-trial conference and trial dates. (ECF No. 245.)
The Court agrees with the defendants that the scheduling order at ECF No. 61 controlled only initial and rebuttal expert reports, and that the deadline for final, trial-ready expert reports is therefore governed by Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(i). This is supported not only by the language of the order at ECF No. 61, but also by the parties' conduct. As the defendants point out, the plaintiffs themselves disclosed an expert witness report after the September 12, 2024 deadline at ECF No. 61. (See Ex. 3 to Decl. of G. Maatman, ECF No. 228-4.)
Because the deadline for making the disclosure that the defendants seek to make is governed by Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(i) rather than the order at ECF No. 61, it has been mooted by the vacatur of the trial date. At the time the motion was filed, the parties were less than ninety days away from trial, and the defendants therefore needed relief from Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(i)'s ... (truncated)