Crestbrook Insurance Company v. Ecolab Inc., 6:24-cv-01091

Crestbrook Insurance sues Ecolab in Kansas federal court for breach of oral contract and negligence arising from a grain-bin fumigation incident at Central Prairie Co-Op.
Scheduling orders limited expert disclosures to two rounds; later Amended Scheduling Order set specific fact and expert disclosure deadlines.
Plaintiff served its expert Dr. Maier on May 15, 2025, with seven-day extensions negotiated for Maier and other experts.
Plaintiff moved on August 7, 2025 for leave to serve a rebuttal report; the court denied the motion for multiple reasons but noted disputed issues remained.
Final pretrial conference August 5, 2025 raised disputes about Dr. Maier’s rebuttal report; the court directed meet-and-confer and potential further proceedings.
The court sua sponte modified scheduling deadlines to permit a deposition of Dr. Maier and set new deadlines culminating in trial reset to August 4, 2026 and dispositive motion deadline of November 14, 2025.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Topics 2, 5, and 6 should be stricken as improper rebuttal	Maier's topics are proper rebuttal to Streifel’s opinions	Topics 2, 5, 6 are not proper rebuttal and extend beyond the scope	Granted as unopposed for Topics 2, 5, 6
Whether Topics 1, 3, and 4 constitute proper rebuttal	Topics address Streifel’s understanding of HDS and its output	Some topics mischaracterize Streifel’s conclusions or advance new theories	Topics 1, 3, and 4 deemed proper rebuttal in the court’s discretion
Whether the rebuttal timing complied with Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) and related scheduling	Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) governs timing in absence of explicit scheduling rules	Rebuttal timing violated scheduling order and needs sanction	Court found no Rule 26(a) violation on record and allowed limited rebuttal while adjusting deadlines
Whether the court should modify scheduling deadlines to permit Maier’s deposition	Deposition necessary to address amended rebuttal	Deposition should be limited and deadlines must be adjusted	Good cause shown; deadlines postponed to permit deposition and amended pretrial order
Whether to reset trial and dispositive-motion deadlines given late-stage issues	Necessary to complete briefing after rebuttal	Resetting unfair given late-stage changes	Trial reset to August 4, 2026; dispositive motion deadline November 14, 2025

Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2005) (rebuttal evidence and same subject matter broad interpretation under Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii))
Rodgers v. Beechcraft Corp., 759 F. App’x 646 (10th Cir. 2018) (timing and scope of rebuttal testimony under Rule 26(a)(2)(D))