90 days earlier, or by August 27. Because Continental had not filed its expert report by that date, the district court barred Continental’s expert. On appeal, Continental claims that the district court erred in barring its expert report under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), and in denying Continental’s motion to reconsider. We agree. Rule 26(a)(2)(C) explicitly provides that the 90-day deadline applies “[i]n the absence of other directions from the court, ...” and in this case the district court entered a minute order stating that the discovery cut-off date was October 31, 2001, “which includes experts.” This provision constitutes “other directions from the court,” and therefore the 90-day cutoff of Rule 26(a)(2)(C) does not apply. See, e.g., Sherrod v. Lingle, 223 F.3d 605, 612-13 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the discovery cut-off date of October
holding that any general deadline for completion of discovery facially applies to requests for admissions 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 court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants a protective order where plaintiff failed to request discovery until nine days before the deadline 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 a court order setting a deadline for all discovery constitutes other directions from the court 