This appeal presents a host of is- sues arising from an effort to prove lost profits for a business that never opened. In 2006, plaintiff Chicago Joe’s Tea Room, LLC hoped to open an adult entertainment business in a Chi- cago suburb, the Village of Broadview. Chicago Joe’s encoun- tered legal obstacles that it claimed violated its constitutional 2 No. 22-3194 rights. For over fifteen years, Chicago Joe’s has been seeking tens of millions of dollars in lost profits for that hypothetical business. The district court excluded most of Chicago Joe’s evidence and theories for lost-profits damages. The exclusions were based on a number of substantive and procedural problems with the evidence Chicago Joe’s offered. The court eventually entered a final judgment awarding Chicago Joe’s just $15,111 in damages. Chicago Joe’s has appealed. We affirm. All issues in this appeal challenge decisions that are left to the sound discretion of the district court, and we find no abuses of discretion. Along the way, we address limits on using lay opinions to prove lost profits for a business that never opened, limits on the testimony that a rebuttal ex- pert can offer, exclusion of late or undisclosed evidence as a discovery sanction, and denial of leave to amend a complaint eleven years after the case was filed. I. Factual and Procedural Background A. Special Use Permit Denial, Constitutional Challenges, and a New Illinois Statute We begin with a brief outline of more than fifteen years of litigation, providing more issue-specific details later. Chicago Joe’s Tea Room intended to open not a tearoom but a strip club and restaurant in the Village of Broadview in Cook County, Illinois, west of Chicago. The proposed club planned to feature semi-nude dancing and to serve alcohol. In 2006, David Donahue contracted to buy land in the Vil- lage from plaintiff Pervis Conway with the goal of opening Chicago Joe’s at that location. Donahue then assigned the land contract to Chicago Joe’s, LLC, of which Donahue became the No. 22-3194 3 sole member in 2010. The land was zoned industrial, and in December 2006, Chicago Joe’s applied for a special use per- mit. In early 2007, the application was denied. Chicago Joe’s had made clear that it intended to serve alcohol, but a Village ordinance prohibited adult entertainment businesses from selling alcohol. Shortly after that denial, the Village amended its adult business ordinance to prohibit such businesses within 1,000 feet of any residential area. Under that re- striction, Chicago Joe’s would not have been able to open at the proposed site even if it could resolve other issues. On May 11, 2007, Chicago Joe’s and Conway filed this law- suit against the Village of Broadview, members of the Zoning Board, and members of the Village Board. The complaint sought a variety of relief, including (1) a declaratory judgment that both the special use ordinance and the alcohol prohibi- tion ordinance violated the First Amendment; (2) an injunc- tion against enforcement of the ordinances against Chicago Joe’s; and (3) monetary damages for the unconstitutional de- nial of the special use permit. In September 2008, Judge Gottschall granted and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment. Judge Gottschall found that the alcohol ban was unconstitutional. Chicago Joe’s Tea Room, LLC v. Village of Broadview, No. 07-cv- 2680, 2008 WL 4287002 , at *19 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2008). Judge Gottschall also found that Chicago Joe’s had acquired a “vested right” under Illinois law to proceed under the adult- business ordinance as it existed at the time it applied for the special use permit. Id. at *6. In the meantime, though, the State of Illinois had changed its laws regarding adult businesses. On August 16, 2007, about three months after this suit was filed, the Illinois legislature 4