422 F. App'x 663
10th Cir.2011Background
- In a diversity action, M.J.H. was injured when her bicycle was struck by a Ford F-150 driven by Brandon Moore; her mother sued Ford for negligence and product liability asserting the truck lacked front-wheel anti-lock brakes.
- BancFirst, as BancFirst’s expert Medcalf testified that four-wheel ABS would have prevented the accident, contradicting his earlier deposition statements.
- Ford moved for summary judgment after discovery; BancFirst submitted Rule 30(e) errata and a new declaration from Medcalf attempting to modify his deposition testimony.
- The district court disallowed the errata and updated declaration and granted Ford summary judgment based on the prior deposition.
- BancFirst moved under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend judgment, which the district court denied.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirms the exclusion of the errata and declaration but reverses the grant of summary judgment and remands for further proceedings, including Daubert considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by excluding the errata and declaration? | BancFirst contends the errata and declaration should be considered; they alter Medcalf's testimony on causation. | Ford argues the changes are improper and should be disregarded. | Exclusion affirmed; errata/declaration properly disregarded. |
| Was summary judgment improper given Medcalf's testimony and its alteration attempts? | BancFirst argues a genuine issue of material fact exists about ABS preventing the accident. | Ford asserts BancFirst cannot prove causation without acceptable evidence. | Summary judgment improper; genuine dispute exists. |
| Should the district court's Daubert admissibility ruling be resolved on appeal or remanded for findings? | N/A | Daubert admissibility not resolved on the record appeal; district court must decide. | Remand to address Daubert admissibility. |
| Is BancFirst's Rule 59(e) appeal moot after reversal of summary judgment? | N/A | N/A | Moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Pueblo Country Club, 299 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2002) (discusses limitations on altering deposition testimony under Rule 30(e))
- Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande Western R.R. Co., 215 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir. 2000) (remand required when record lacks Daubert findings)
- Kirkland v. Gen. Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla. 1974) (causation in products liability requires more than mere possibility)
- Michael v. Intracorp, Inc., 179 F.3d 847 (10th Cir. 1999) (standard for reviewing exclusion of affidavits at summary judgment)