Thank you khenry, don't thank you enough for your continued contribution here. Time consuming and does have a cost so we are very appreciative and if things work out and you find yourself on our UOIP vacation i'm fairly certain you'll have zero costs on that trip.
Maybe I read a lot of these pacers with bias - but I try to read it from the perception of the Judge taking into account both sides arguments and considering them fairly.
However - i'm not quite sure how the Defendant has the audacity and is bold enough to bring on a new theory almost at the conclusion of expert discovery. Fact discovery is the time to propose and determine which theories will be tested and argued. How do you get to the conclusion of fact discovery - which lasted months and months - then wait until near the end of expert discovery to propose a new theory to challenge the Plaintiff with. Both sides are given time to articulate their argument and case by determining which points will be argued in the fact discovery period. Then the Defendant has the audacity to claim they have every right to include a new theory. I'm just not sure how the Judge could side with their decision here - and would think he would decide they are abusing the court's process. Sometimes it seems to me the Defendant digs a deeper hole then just moving on admitting they were wrong. Done it time and time again in this particular case.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
