to allege damages through June 30, 2006 is the focus of their motion.”). Because the Government does not oppose Plaintiff supplementing the September 4, 2009 Complaint to seek damages through the end of 2009, the issue before the court is whether Plaintiff may supplement to allege a claim for damages incurred through December 31, 2009, or through December 31, 2010. See System Fuels, 73 Fed.Cl. at 211 (“Supplementation may be limited or curtailed to avoid prejudice.” (citation omitted)). Although Plaintiff may have given the Government an estimate of 2010 damages as early as July 2010, Plaintiff did not identify the specific 2010 damages claimed or provide the Government with supporting documentation of those damages until April 20, 2011 — t 4 Fed.Cl. 727 (2006) (“SMUD III") (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 293 Fed.Appx.
holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding holding that smud was entitled to 39796234 in damages holding that a plaintiff is entitled to either statutory treble damages or punitive damages whichever is the greater holding that plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption of nominal damages when she had failed to request them holding that smud was entitled to mitigation damages for costs incurred from may 15 1997 to december 31 2003