Goodman v. Staples the Office Super-Store, LLC
644 F.3d 817
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Goodman, a consumer, tripped over an end cap at Staples in Scottsdale, AZ on May 9, 2007, sustaining neck and head injuries and later requiring fusion revision surgeries.
- Goodman received treating medical care in Arizona and California, with subsequent MRI/CT confirming a fracture near the fusion plate and ongoing neck pain.
- She filed a negligence suit in state court for a dangerous store condition; Staples removed it to federal court based on complete diversity.
- Disclosure deadlines in the district court passed without written expert reports for Goodman's medical and non-medical experts, triggering a precluding motion by Staples.
- The district court limited testimony of Goodman's treating physicians unless they produced Rule 26(a)(2) reports and held hybrid experts must be disclosed with written reports, affecting causation evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a triable issue as to breach of duty? | Goodman argues end cap was dangerous and Staples should foresee harm. | Staples contends end cap was open and obvious; no breach. | Triable issue; open/obvious not automatic, foreseeability may require warning. |
| Did causation exists given treating physicians' testimony? | Treating doctors could causally relate fall to injuries; failure to timely disclose reports should not bar causation testimony. | Rule 26 requires reports for retained/hybrid experts; treating physicians testimony on causation not exempt when opinions are beyond treatment. | Reversed summary judgment; treaters transformed into hybrid experts; allow discovery-late reports prospectively. |
| Does Rule 26(a)(2) require written reports for hybrid treating-physician experts? | Treating physicians’ opinions should be exempt from reports if formed during treatment. | Hybrid experts must provide written reports; disclosure timing matters. | Treating-physician exemption narrowed; hybrid experts require reports; retroactivity rejected in favor of prospective remedy. |
| Was the preclusion of non-medical experts proper? | Non-medical experts should be allowed in case-in-chief if timely disclosed. | Late-disclosed non-medical expert reports should be excluded under Rule 37(c)(1). | District court did not abuse discretion; exclusion affirmed; prejudice shown. |
| Should the case be remanded for further proceedings on remaining issues? | Remand to address newly clarified hybrid expert rule and causation. | Remand unnecessary if summary judgment stands. | Remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141, 150 P.3d 228 (2007) (elements of negligence; causation; duty)
- Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., 652 P.2d 1042 (1982) (open and obvious condition; foreseeability; duty)
- Fielden v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 482 F.3d 866 (6th Cir.2007) (treating physician exception to Rule 26; hybrid experts)
- Meyers v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 619 F.3d 729 (7th Cir.2010) (treated physicians and expert disclosures; causation)
- Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 620 F.3d 896 (8th Cir.2010) (treating physician testimony; causation; expert reports)
- Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir.2001) (Rule 37 sanctions for failure to disclose expert information)