SYSTEM FUELS, INC., Systеm Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant.
No. 11-511C
United States Court of Federal Claims.
Filed: June 13, 2013
381
It is so ORDERED.
SUSAN G. BRADEN, Judge
On December 5, 2011, over eighteen months ago, Plaintiffs agreed to submit all expert reports to the Government by May 11, 2012. See Scheduling Order, Dec. 5, 2011, ECF No. 14. Subsequently, in Consolidated Edison Co. v. United States, 676 F.3d 1331 (Fed.Cir.2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims awarding damages for “generic fees”1 paid to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC“), because the plaintiff failed to prove that the NRC‘s overall “genеric” activity costs increased as a result of the Department of Energy (“DOE“)‘s breach of the Standard Contract or that DOE‘s breach caused the NRC to change its “generic” fee structure in 1999. Id. at 1340.
On April 16, 2013, Plаintiffs filed a Motion To Permit Designation Of An Additional Expert And Fact Witness And To Amend The Pre-Trial Schedule (“Pls. Mot.“). Therein, Plaintiffs requested that the court allow Plaintiffs to designate Mr. Jesse Funches, a retired Chief Finanсial Officer of the NRC, as an expert and fact witness to meet the evidentiary deficiencies identified in Consolidated Edison. Pls. Mot. at 1, 4-6. On May 10, 2013, the Government filed a Response (“Gov‘t Resp.“). On May 17, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Reply (“Pls. Reply“). On May 21, 2013, the court convened a telephone conference to hear the parties’ arguments (“5/21/13 TR at 1-22“).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cirсuit has held that four factors should be considered by a trial court in determining whether “good cause” exists to modify a schedule under
The first factor focuses on why a party failed to comply with a scheduled deadline. A party‘s realization that it elected to pursue the wrong litigation strategy is not good сause for amending a schedule. See Eichorn, 484 F.3d at 651 (approving a trial court‘s ruling that the deliberate nature of the plaintiffs’ initial decision to proceed without expert testimony was not sufficient to show good cause). Although Plaintiffs in this case contend that Consolidated Edison was an “intervening development in the applicable case law,” the court reads that decision simply to reaffirm a plaintiff‘s burden to establish causation in a breach of contract claim. See Consol. Edison, 676 F.3d at 1338-40 (analyzing the evidence of causation and finding it lacking). Plaintiffs’ recent concern that their case may have evidentiary shortcomings, does not explain their failure to designate Mr. Funches as an expert in a timely manner.
Assuming, arguendo, that Consolidated Edison was an unforeseeable change in the law, that still does not excuse Plaintiffs’ failurе to comply with the December 5, 2011 Scheduling Order. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Consolidated Edison on April 16, 2012, a month before Plaintiffs’ deadline for submitting their expert reports. Plaintiffs, howevеr, waited a year before deciding they needed to add a witness. Cf. Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3d Cir.1986) (“We believe that a party taking the position that nine months is an inadequate period in which to obtain and file an expert‘s report has an obligation to provide the court with a record which affirmatively demonstrates, with specificity, diligent efforts on his or her part and unusual circumstances which have frustrated thоse efforts.“). Moreover, instead of directly addressing this issue, Plaintiffs cite “the paucity of information regarding causation and the proper calculation of NRC fees attributable to the Gоvernment‘s breach that [spent nuclear fuel] plaintiffs have been able to extract from the Government through formal discovery.” Pl. Reply at 3. In short, Plaintiffs blame the Government for their lack of diligеnce.
The second factor is the importance of the proposed testimony. In spent nuclear fuel cases, our appellate court has suggested two ways that a plaintiff сan establish a causal link between DOE‘s breach and an increase in generic fees paid by [the plaintiff]: (1) that NRC‘s overall generic costs increased as a result of
Plaintiffs insist that Mr. Funches is necessary to establish this causal link, because he “was directly involved in the decision to change the fees, and he was also involved in the computation of those fees on a going forward basis, and both of those issues have been the subject of dispute between the parties.” 5/21/13 TR at 9 (Pls. Counsel). As to whether DOE‘s breach of the Standard Contract caused the NRC‘s overall “generic” costs to increase, the court sees little probative value in Mr. Funches‘s testimony. The NRC rules are issued by a five-member Commission appointed by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate. See
Mr. Funches‘s proposed testimony as to why the NRC‘s fees increased presents the same problem. As NRC‘s CFO, he was an advisor, not a decisionmaker. See
For these reasons, the court has determined that Mr. Funches‘s testimony would be hearsay and irrelevant since the reasons for the NRC‘s 1999 rule and subsequent changes are set forth in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
The third factor is prejudice to the non-moving party. To date, the Government has conducted substantial discovery based, in part, on the expert reports that Plaintiffs produced on May 11, 2012. Gov‘t Resp. at 11 n.9 (“The Government has already taken approximately 20 depositions in this case[.]“). If the court grants Plaintiffs’ April 16, 2013 Motion, the Government would need tо investigate Mr. Funches‘s assertions and might need to hire a new expert. Gov‘t Resp. at 11. The Government‘s expert report is due July 1, 2013, and all other discovery, including expert witness depositions, is to be completed no later than August 15, 2013. See Scheduling Order, Feb. 25, 2013, ECF No. 28 (establishing deadlines). For the reasons discussed herein, the court sees no reason to impose the burden of any additional discovery on the Government.
Finally, the fourth factor is the court‘s ability to cure any prejudice to the non-moving party. Although discovery deadlines can be extended, the court cannot compensate the Government for the added expense it would incur. See, e.g., Dag Enterprises, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 226 F.R.D. 95, 110 (D.D.C.2005) (“Compelling a party with ‘clean hands’ to incur significant additional expense and spend a large amount of additionаl time in discovery when the opposing side has not acted with diligence and has not shown ‘good cause’ is simply unwarranted.“). Although Plaintiffs argue that the
For these reasons, the Plaintiffs’ April 16, 2013 Motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.