103 Investors I, LP v. Square D Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• commenting that “[plaintiff] could not have been expected to file a rebuttal expert report prior to the report it sought to rebut”
• finding that a rebuttal report responded to the “thrust of” the primary experts’ analyses and did “not represent a new theory”
• reversing exclusion because the order neglected to “grant a parallel extension” for rebuttal reports
• “Because the decision to grant summary judgment was premised upon its exclusion of the expert reports, we REVERSE the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).