or in a policy schedule, states that products-completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit. (Id.). 4 . Cat Tech's argument that Martin’s testimony should be stricken because the plaintiffs ignored requests to schedule Martin’s deposition until after Cat Tech's deadline to designate experts had passed is both moot and unpersuasive. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to move for an extension of deadlines for expert designations on a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. Cat Tech did not make such a motion. Striking an expert witness is reserved for extreme cases and is particularly inappropriate when the scheduling order could have been modified to accommodate any issues. See, e.g., Freeland v. Amigo, 103 F.3d 1271, 1276-77 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 5 . As it did in moving to strike Martin's
holding that any general deadline for completion of discovery facially applies to requests for admissions holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline holding that the drastic sanction of preclusion of expert witnesses was not warranted based on failure to furnish discovery by the discovery deadline when the deadline could have been shifted holding that review by certiorari was available to remedy a trial court order that improperly struck two of the states witnesses as a sanction for the states failure to disclose the address of one of the witnesses in discovery holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law