Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

EDDIE J. LOGAN, III CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-380

NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC BELT SECTION: “G”

RAILROAD COMMISSION FOR THE

PORT OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are Defendant New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Commission for the

Port of New Orleans’ (“NOPB”) Motion to Strike1 and Plaintiff Eddie J. Logan, III’s (“Plaintiff”)

Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum.2 This litigation arises from claims brought

by Plaintiff pursuant to the Federal Employer’s Liability Act.3 Trial in this matter is currently

scheduled for January 26, 2026. Considering the motions, the memoranda, the record, and the

applicable law, the Court denies NOPB’s Motion to Strike and grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to File Supplemental Memorandum.

I. Background

On November 25, 2025, NOPB filed a Motion in Limine4 to exclude the testimony of

Alexander A. Nepa and Randolph Rice. On December 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the

1 Rec. Doc. 62.

2 Rec. Doc. 66.

3 Rec. Doc. 1.

4 Rec. Doc. 46.

motion.5 On the same day, Plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition to the

motion, attaching an updated expert report from Dr. Rice.6 On December 16, 2025, NOPB filed

the instant Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s supplemental memorandum and the updated expert report.7

On December 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Supplemental

Memorandum.8

II. Parties’ Arguments

A. Motion to Strike

In the Motion to Strike, NOPB moves to strike Plaintiff’s supplemental memorandum and

expert report.9 NOPB argues that that the supplemental memorandum should be stricken because

Plaintiff cannot file multiple oppositions to NOPB’s motion without leave of Court.10 NOPB

further argues that the supplemental expert report should be stricken because there is no good

cause for the Court to allow Plaintiff to file an untimely expert report, and Dr. Rice’s opinions

are unreliable.11 NOPB explains that Dr. Rice’s December 9, 2025 opinion is purportedly based

on Plaintiff’s earning statements from the New Orleans Police Department, however, Plaintiff did

not produce his police department paystubs through November 29, 2025.12 NOPB contends that

Dr, Rice also relies on a December 8, 2025 email containing “additional data” and a revised “work

5 Rec. Doc. 53.

6 Rec. Doc. 56.

7 Rec. Doc. 62.

8 Rec. Doc. 66.

9 Rec. Doc. 62.

10 Rec. Doc. 62-1 at 1.

11 Id.

12 Id. at 8.

life,” which was not produced.13

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the December 9, 2025 report is not new, rather Dr.

Rice updated his calculations to reflect Plaintiff’s most recent earnings in anticipation of the

upcoming trial.14 Plaintiff explains that the supplemental memorandum merely identifies the

December 9, 2025 report without setting forth new legal arguments.15 Plaintiff further argues that

Dr. Rice’s opinions are reliable and admissible.16 Plaintiff avers that questions related to the bases

and sources of an expert’s opinion should be left for the consideration of the finder of fact and

affect the weight of the opinion rather than its admissibility.17

B. Motion for Leave of Court to File Supplemental Memorandum

Plaintiff requests leave of Court to file a supplemental memorandum in response to

NOPB’s motion in limine and the updated expert report from Dr. Rice.18 Plaintiff reiterates that

Dr. Rice’s December 9, 2025 report is not new, rather Dr. Rice updated his calculations to reflect

Plaintiff’s most recent earnings in anticipation of trial.19 Plaintiff states that the supplemental

memorandum raises no new legal arguments.20 Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15

regarding supplemental pleadings, Plaintiff asserts that he should be granted leave of Court to file

13 Id. at 9.

14 Rec. Doc. 65 at 2.

15 Id.

16 Id. at 6–7.

17 Id. at 8.

18 Rec. Doc. 66.

19 Rec. Doc. 66-1 at 2.

20 Id.

his supplemental memorandum and updated expert report.21

In opposition, NOPB argues Plaintiff has no good cause to allow him to supplement his

opposition with an untimely expert report.22 NOPB avers that Dr. Rice’s expert testimony should

be excluded for the same reasons set out in NOPB’s Motion in Limine.23 NOPB contends that

Rule 15 does not apply to opposition memoranda, only pleadings.24 NOPB avers that Plaintiff

offered no explanation for failing to timely produce the new report, and the resources Dr. Rice

relied upon were available before the expert deadline.25 NOPB refutes the importance of the new

expert report.26 NOPB contends that allowing Plaintiff to supplement his opposition with a new

expert report would be prejudicial, and a continuance would disrupt the trial date.27

III. Law and Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) provides that a party must disclose the

identities of testifying expert witnesses and their written reports at the times and in the sequence

that the court orders. If a party fails to provide information required by Rule 26(a) he is not

allowed to use that information at trial unless the failure was “substantially justified” or is

“harmless.”28 “The Fifth Circuit has provided four factors to analyze when determining whether

a Rule 26 violation is substantially justified or harmless: (1) the explanation for the failure to

21 Id. at 3–4.

22 Rec. Doc. 72 at 1.

23 Rec. Doc. 46.

24 Id. at 4.

25 Id. at 5.

26 Id. at 6.

27 Id. at 6–7.

28 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(c)(1).

identify the witness; (2) the importance of the testimony; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the

testimony; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.”29

Also applicable is Rule 26(e)(2), which permits supplementation of an expert report, but

“[a]ny additions or changes to [the] information must be disclosed by the time the party’s pretrial

disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due.” Under Rule 26(a)(3), “[w]hen the Scheduling Order is

silent, supplemental reports are generally due 30-days pretrial.”30 The scheduling order in this

case does not provide a deadline for supplemental reports.

The Court must determine the nature of Plaintiff’s newly submitted expert reports:

As a threshold issue, the Court must determine if Plaintiff's disclosures were

supplemental or instead contain completely new information. If the disclosures

were supplemental, then Rule 26’s supplemental procedures will determine

whether the disclosures are timely. If the disclosures were new, then they are

governed by the discovery deadline in the Scheduling Order.31

Review of the updated expert report of Dr. Rice confirms that this report is a true

supplement reflecting updates based on Plaintiff’s more recent earnings. Therefore, the Court

finds that the supplemental report should be allowed as permitted by Rule 26(e). The Court also

finds that Plaintiff’s supplemental response memorandum does not introduce new legal theories

or arguments. Moreover, NOPB has not demonstrated any undue prejudice that would result from

permitting the supplemental filings. The supplemental memorandum and report were filed on the

exact same day as Plaintiff’s original opposition to the Motion to Exclude Dr. Rice. Any argument

29 Logan v. Westfield Ins. Co., No. CV 17-29, 2020 WL 7007945, at *5 (W.D. La. Jan. 24, 2020) (quoting

Hamburger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 361 F.3d 875, 883 (5th Cir. 2004)).

30 Aikens v. Cent. Oregon Truck Co., Inc., No. 4:20-CV-00567, 2021 WL 4312712, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sept.

22, 2021).

31 Id. at *2.

related to the substance and admissibility of Dr. Rice’s expert opinions will be addressed based

on the pending Motion to Exclude.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental

Memorandum” is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NOPB’s Motion to Strike*? is DENIED.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 9th day of January, 2026.

NANNETTE JOLUTVETTE BROWN (ow

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

32 Rec. Doc. 66.

33 Rec. Doc. 62.