United States v. Alabama Power Co., 274 F.R.D. 686

The United States sued Alabama Power Company over emissions from Gorgas Unit 10 balanced draft conversion.
Koppe performed the generation-impact assessment; Sahu performed the emissions calculations.
Sahu issued an amended rebuttal showing specific emissions increases due to capacity and outage-hour changes.
Sahu later prepared paragraph 5 of a declaration isolating capacity-increase emissions alone.
Alabama Power moved to strike paragraph 5 as a new, late-disclosed expert opinion.
The court concluded paragraph 5 was a new opinion, precluding its use unless harmless or cured.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether paragraph 5 is a new expert opinion.	Sahu's prior reports already disclosed 126,000 MWhrs etc.	Paragraph 5 reiterates disclosed data; no new opinion.	New opinion; not admissible.
Whether non-disclosure of paragraph 5 warrants Rule 37(c)(1) preclusion.	Disclosures were timely or harmless.	Non-disclosure prejudices Alabama Power.	Non-disclosure not harmless; precluded.
Whether paragraph 5 is admissible under Daubert given reliance on Koppe methodology.	Sahu's methods are valid.	Paragraph 5 relies on new formulas; not admissible.	Admissibility questioned; strike affirmed.
Whether the court should grant summary judgment given exclusion of paragraph 5.	Net emissions could still exceed thresholds.	Without paragraph 5, plaintiffs cannot prove required emissions increase.	Summary judgment for Alabama Power; claims dismissed.

Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561 (U.S. 2007) (major modification requires net emissions increase; framework for threshold)
Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2008) (Rule 26 expert-discovery requirements; need for complete disclosures)