DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
JOHN ST. ROSE individually and as
5
Personal Representative of the Estates of
5
ROSALINE ST. ROSE,
5
1:04-cv-114
5
Plaintiffs,
5
v.
5
5
MOBILE PAINT MANUFACTURING
5
COMPANY OF DELAWARE d/b/a THE
5
NEW PAINT LOCKER, MOBILE PAINT
5
CARIBBEAN, INC., SEALOFLEX INC., and
5
SEALOFLEX SALES, INC.,
5
5
Defendants.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Wilfredo A. Geigel, Esq.
Michael J. Sanford, Esq.
ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Defendants Sealoflex, Inc., and Sealoflex
Sales, Inc.’s Motion to Reopen Discovery (Docket No. 339).  Plaintiffs filed an opposition
to the said motion, and said Defendants filed a reply thereto.
Said Defendants seek to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of deposing
Plaintiffs’ experts with regard to their “supplemental” reports filed after the close of expert
discovery and after said Defendants filed their summary judgment and Daubert motions. 
Case: 1:04-cv-00114-LDD   Document #: 351   Filed: 09/18/09   Page 1 of 3
St. Rose v. Mobile Paint Manufacturing Co. of Delaware
1:04-cv-114
Order
Page 2
Plaintiffs oppose the motion, stating that the supplemental reports presented no new
opinions, but, merely explained further the bases for the opinions in the original reports
in response to  said Defendants’ Daubert challenges.  Plaintiffs maintain that said Defendant
had adequate time and opportunity to depose the experts prior to the close of expert
discovery.
The deadline for expert depositions in this matter was January 31, 2009.  Seventh
and Final Scheduling Order (Docket No. 251), entered November 5, 2008.  The rule in this
jurisdiction is that movant must offer justification for its delay in seeking the discovery. 
See, e.g., Johnson v. Thru-Point, Inc., 160 Fed. Appx. 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2005) (where the court
states, “Untimely amendments and discovery are disfavored where the movant offers no
justification for the delay”).  The only reason said Defendants give for not deposing
Plaintiffs’ experts earlier is that such depositions only became necessary when the experts
filed supplemental reports just prior to the previously scheduled Daubert hearing.
The Court finds that the stated reason does not justify the reopening of discovery. 
It appears from the circumstances that Defendant merely has changed its litigation strategy. 
Such a change is not a proper basis for reopening discovery.  If, in fact, the supplemental
reports contain new opinions, then the proper course of action is to move to exclude those
Case: 1:04-cv-00114-LDD   Document #: 351   Filed: 09/18/09   Page 2 of 3
St. Rose v. Mobile Paint Manufacturing Co. of Delaware
1:04-cv-114
Order
Page 3
opinions as untimely rebuttal opinions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(ii) or as
improper supplemental reports pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2).
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Defendants Sealoflex, Inc., and
Sealoflex Sales, Inc.’s Motion to Reopen Discovery (Docket No. 339) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: September 18, 2009
/s/ George W. Cannon, Jr.                           
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:04-cv-00114-LDD   Document #: 351   Filed: 09/18/09   Page 3 of 3