Legal Opinion
System Fuels, Inc. and Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided July 15, 2014No. 1:12-cv-00389PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Time for filing expert rebuttal reports where a scheduling order issued by the court does not specify a time; RCFC 26 (a)(2) (D) (ii); exercise of judicial discretion
OPINION AND ORDER
LETTOW, Judge.
In anticipation of trial in this “Phase II” spent nuclear fuel ease, the government has filed a motion to strike from the record an expert rebuttal report submitted on behalf of plaintiffs. The government contends that the report is not authorized by the court’s scheduling order and is untimely under Rule 26 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). For the reasons discussed, the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Indiana Michigan Power Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Southern Nuclear Operating Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Citizens Federal Bank, FSB v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
- System Fuels, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- 103 Investors I, LP v. Square D CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- System Fuels, Inc. and Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
- University of South Florida Board of Trustees v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2021