Asmussen v. CSX Transportation, 237 A.3d 908

Paul Asmussen worked as a CSX trackman (1977–1988) and alleges occupational exposure (ballast silica dust, creosote, diesel smoke) caused kidney cancer diagnosed in 2015; he sued CSX under FELA in 2018.
The circuit court’s scheduling order (amended) set expert-designation and discovery deadlines (expert designations Oct 10, 2018; discovery closed March 11, 2019; dispositive motions Apr 11, 2019).
Asmussen served a boilerplate expert designation Oct 10 and an amended notice Nov 8 that still lacked substantive expert opinions or reports; CSX moved to compel but was denied.
Dr. Regna produced a report Feb 8, 2019 (linking silica to cancer) but his Feb 22 deposition revealed major flaws; Asmussen then attempted to reintroduce Dr. Dahlgren as causation expert on Feb 28.
Dahlgren’s written report was not produced until Apr 24, 2019 (after discovery closed); Asmussen moved on March 11 to modify the scheduling order to permit depositions/reports, which the court denied.
The court struck the late experts (Dahlgren and Runz), concluded Asmussen lacked experts on causation and standard of care, and granted CSX summary judgment; the appeal affirmed.

Issue	Asmussen's Argument	CSX's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Asmussen’s motion to modify the scheduling order	Substantial compliance and good faith attempts to schedule depositions; need to substitute Dahlgren after Regna’s defects were revealed; denial is effectively a case‑ending sanction	Asmussen’s counsel was not diligent, misled about availability, and untimely attempted an expert swap; modification would unfairly prejudice CSX	Denial affirmed: modification requires substantial compliance and good cause; court did not abuse discretion
Whether the court erred in striking experts (Dahlgren, Runz) for untimely designation/deposition	Designations were timely or supplemented in good faith; CSX suffered no unfair prejudice; exclusion too harsh	Late substantive disclosure and failed efforts to secure depositions justified striking; prejudice to CSX substantial	Striking affirmed: late substantive report (Dahlgren) and counsel’s failure to confirm deposition (Runz) justified sanction
Whether summary judgment was improper because a jury could find negligence/causation without the stricken experts	No standard‑of‑care expert required; Dahlgren could establish causation	Without an admissible causation expert (and likely an industry expert on standard of care), Asmussen cannot prove essential elements	Summary judgment affirmed: absence of admissible causation (and standard‑of‑care) expert meant no genuine issue for trial

Taliaferro v. State, 295 Md. 376 (1983) (factors guiding trial‑court discretion on disclosure/sanctions)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary‑judgment standard where nonmoving party lacks proof on an essential element)
Naughton v. Bankier, 114 Md. App. 641 (1997) (scheduling orders are not unyieldingly rigid but require substantial compliance)
Helman v. Mendelson, 138 Md. App. 29 (2001) (application of Taliaferro and exclusion of late expert disclosures)
Rodriguez v. Clarke, 400 Md. 39 (2007) (good‑faith cooperation in discovery required; sanctions are available for noncooperation)
Dorsey v. Nold, 362 Md. 241 (2001) (principal function of scheduling orders is efficient case management)