The Court denied Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company’s motion to exclude the Dunlaps’ expert witnesses, finding that any deficiencies in the expert disclosures were harmless and substantially justified, and that the experts’ methodologies were sufficiently reliable and relevant under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (see United States v. Newball May, 846 F. App’x 831, 836 (11th Cir. 2021); City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chems., Inc., 158 F.3d 548, 562 (11th Cir. 1998)). The Court emphasized that Clear Blue’s failure to address the disclosure issues earlier suggested a strategic choice to lie in wait, which is unacceptable (see Kondragunta v. Ace Doran Hauling & Rigging Co., No. 1:11-CV-01094-JEC, 2013 WL 1189493, at *8 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 21, 2013)).
https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023-00775-58-2-cv