days before the Government’s expert reports were due. By that time, the Government had deposed all of Plaintiffs fact and expert witnesses and prepared its expert damages reports. To allow Plaintiff to include 2010 damages in its claim at this juncture would require the Government to conduct significant extra discovery and potentially delay the evidentiary hearing on damages set for October 24-28, 2011. In addition, Plaintiff has not shown how it would be prejudiced, since Plaintiff may bring a future action to seek damages incurred in 2010 and beyond. Therefore, the court has determined that Plaintiff may only supplement the September 4, 2009 Complaint to allege a claim for damages incurred through December 31, 2009. III. CONCLUSION. For the reasons s 0 Fed.Cl. 332 (2006) ("SMUD II") (<HOLDING>); Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. v. United States,
holding that because plaintiffs failed to prove that their incurred fuel characterization and loading costs would not have been incurred in the nonbreach world plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery for these costs holding that smud was entitled to 39796234 in damages holding that smud was entitled to mitigation damages for costs incurred from may 15 1997 to december 31 2003 holding that bankruptcy court could not enter judgment for 7402564 under  107a for incurred costs when such costs had not been incurred holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding