In Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., v. Wynn, Case No. 6D2023-1940 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026), the Sixth District Court relied on its recent decision in Crecelius v. Rizzitano, 430 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026), which rejected how its sister appellate courts have been applying the analysis in Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 1981), certifying conflict with these other courts again. Here, it affirmed the striking of new expert testimony presented by a defense expert shortly before trial and after the case management deadline to disclose such testimony. Defendant, applying the Binger analysis, argued: (1) the opinion was not new as the expert had disclosed something similar in his original deposition; (2) the timing of this alleged “new” opinion was attributable solely to plaintiff’s disclosure of additional medical records, which defendant received only 11 days prior to the expert’s supplemental deposition where the “new” opinion was disclosed; (3) plaintiff failed to timely object during the defense expert’s deposition about the presentation of this “new” opinion; and (4) plaintiff was not prejudiced because she had two experts testify at trial directly contradicting the issue raised in the “new” opinion.” The Sixth DCA rejected these arguments, explaining that the trial court was within its discretion to apply strict adherence to the case management order deadlines pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200, that defendant should have moved for an extension of time to preserve its position that the expert’s new opinion was timely, and that objections to such expert testimony need only be made at trial, not necessarily during the deposition.

Wynn highlights the potential consequences of expert opinions disclosed after case-management deadlines, even where the circumstances giving rise to the opinion develop late in discovery. The Sixth DCA’s renewed certification of conflict also makes this an issue worth watching as Florida law continues to develop.

For the entire opinion, click HERE.