This opinion is worth reading and considering. The Plaintiff waited until there were only 60 days left in the discovery period to update its interrogatory answers. In those revised answers the Plaintiff sought additional damages that it had not previously sought. Plaintiff, according to the court, had the information in its possession but did not move quickly to supplement the interrogatory answers.
The result is that the court granted Defendant’s motion to bar the additional damage claims. The holding:
In short, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely supplement its answer to Interrogatory No. 9 was not substantially justified or harmless. Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions under Rule 37 are appropriate. Plaintiff will not be allowed to seek the additional categories of damages disclosed for the first time in its December 6, 2016, supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 9.
Given that plaintiff did update the disclosure more than 60 days before the close of discovery, this ruling is an outlier. Plaintiff may wish to appeal on this issue.