The defendants brought a motion in the middle of a jury trial for leave to file a new expert report from a vocational rehabilitation expert.
The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it would be highly prejudicial as she had already closed her case and her experts had testified.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that allowing the late report would be unfair and prejudicial, an adjournment was impossible due to the jury, and the defendants had long known the basis of the plaintiff's future income loss claim.
