System Fuels, Inc. v. United States
111 Fed. Cl. 381
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Case is in the United States Court of Federal Claims, No. 11-511C, regarding NRC fees under 10 C.F.R. pt. 171 and RCFC 16(b)(4) scheduling orders.
- Plaintiffs proposed to submit all expert reports by May 11, 2012, per a December 5, 2011 scheduling order.
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2012) reversed a decision on NRC generic fees, raising causation questions tied to DOE breach.
- On April 16, 2013, Plaintiffs moved to designate Jesse Funches as an additional expert/fact witness to address evidentiary gaps.
- The Government opposed; the court held a 5/21/13 hearing to discuss the motion.
- Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion on the grounds of lack of good cause, lack of probative value, and potential prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause exists to modify scheduling order | Plaintiffs rely on Consolidated Edison as intervening law. | Delay shows lack of diligence; no good cause to add an expert. | No good cause; motion denied. |
| Whether Funches’s testimony is probative to causation | Funches directly involved in fee decisions and calculations. | Funches was a CFO and not a decisionmaker; testimony is hearsay and irrelevant. | Not probative; testimony excluded. |
| Whether the testimony would prejudice the Government | Minimal discovery impact; trying to cure evidentiary gaps. | Additional discovery and expert work would burden Government. | Prejudice exists; denial appropriate. |
| Whether the court can cure prejudice by extending discovery | Extensions would address new testimony. | Cannot compensate for added expense; extensions unlikely to be fair. | No cure; court denied motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. United States, 676 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (causation in breach-of-contract NRC fee context)
- Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15 (3d Cir. 1986) (diligence required to justify delays in expert designation)
- Eichorn v. AT&T Corp., 484 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 2007) (factors for late expert designation and prejudice)
- Dag Enterprises, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 226 F.R.D. 95 (D.D.C. 2005) (district court prejudice and discovery considerations)
- Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc., 109 F.3d 739 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (application of Rule 16(b)(4) to modify scheduling orders)
- Parker v. Office of Personnel Management, 974 F.2d 164 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (post hoc agency rationale is suspect)