Gonzalez-Rivera v. Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc., 931 F.3d 23

Plaintiff González-Rivera sued multiple Puerto Rico healthcare providers in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for malpractice arising from 2010 surgery complications.
The district court issued a scheduling order requiring expert reports by May 20, 2016; discovery closed November 15, 2016; dispositive motions due December 16, 2016.
Plaintiff timely produced one expert report (Dr. Carlos Lasalle-Nieves) but did not produce Dr. Allan Hausknecht's report until June 2017, over a year late; plaintiff had earlier identified Hausknecht as a potential expert but did not disclose his report by the deadline.
Defendants moved to exclude late expert disclosures and for summary judgment; the district court excluded both experts (Lasalle and Hausknecht) and later entered summary judgment for defendants because plaintiff lacked admissible expert testimony.
The First Circuit reviewed the exclusion of Hausknecht for abuse of discretion and affirmed, emphasizing scheduling order compliance, prejudice to defendants, and docket management concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused its discretion by excluding plaintiff's belated expert (Dr. Hausknecht)	Exclusion was unduly severe; Hausknecht was necessary to prove malpractice	Late disclosure violated scheduling order, prejudiced defendants, and disrupted docket; exclusion appropriate sanction	Affirmed: exclusion was within district court's discretion
Whether summary judgment was improper after exclusion of plaintiff's sole expert	Case can proceed without Hausknecht or other expert evidence	Without admissible expert testimony, plaintiff cannot prove essential elements of malpractice	Affirmed: summary judgment proper because plaintiff lacked necessary expert proof
Whether district court erred in reinstating dismissed defendant based on late expert evidence	Reinstatement justified by new neuro report from Hausknecht	Reinstatement based on untimely evidence would prejudice defendants and contravene deadline	Affirmed denial of reinstatement; late evidence excluded
Whether any lesser sanction should have been imposed instead of exclusion	Lesser sanctions could cure prejudice (e.g., continuance, limited reopening)	Lesser measures would unfairly burden defendants and impair docket; plaintiff offered no good cause for delay	Affirmed: exclusion appropriate given history, lack of justification, and prejudice

Samaan v. St. Joseph Hosp., 670 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing exclusion of expert as sanction)
Thibeault v. Square D Co., 960 F.2d 239 (1st Cir. 1992) (deference to district court's choice of sanctions)
Santiago-Díaz v. Laboratorio Clínico y de Referencia del Este, 456 F.3d 272 (1st Cir. 2006) (district court's docket-management interest and sanctions for noncompliance)
Macaulay v. Anas, 321 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2003) (factors for excluding late expert disclosures)
Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2009) (exclusion of sole expert can effectively dispose of malpractice case)
Cortés-Irizarry v. Corporación Insular de Seguros, 111 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 1997) (need for expert testimony to prove medical-malpractice breach)
Genereux v. Raytheon Co., 754 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2014) (district courts' broad authority to manage discovery and sanction violations)
Indep. Oil & Chem. Workers of Quincy, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 927 (1st Cir. 1988) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (issues not developed on appeal are waived)