Isidora Rivera v. Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD
711 F. App'x 952
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rivera slipped and fell on an ice-covered stage aboard Royal Caribbean’s ship and sued for negligence alleging various injuries.
- The district court set a schedule requiring Rivera to disclose expert witnesses and reports by July 27, 2016, and to make disclosed experts available for deposition within 14 days; discovery closed September 22, 2016.
- Rivera obtained a one-time extension to disclose experts until August 19, 2016, but the discovery cutoff was not extended; she disclosed experts on August 19 but did not make them available for deposition within the required period.
- After the magistrate ordered Rivera to produce experts for deposition by September 22, she again failed to do so; Royal Caribbean moved to strike the experts and the magistrate granted the motion.
- Rivera’s motions to compel depositions and a video were denied by the magistrate; she did not timely object to that order.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Royal Caribbean, concluding Rivera failed to establish proximate causation without expert medical testimony; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motions to compel depositions and video | Rivera argued she needed the depositions/video for her case | Royal Caribbean opposed and court treated motions as untimely/meritless | Waived by Rivera for failing to timely object; magistrate order stands |
| Exclusion/striking of expert witnesses for untimely depositions | Rivera argued she had an extension and later sought to reopen/extend expert discovery | Royal Caribbean argued Rivera violated scheduling order and failed to make experts available | Court did not abuse discretion in striking experts for failing to meet deadlines; affirmed |
| Whether exclusion of experts was waived by failure to object | Rivera contended her Motion to Reopen could be construed as timely objection | Royal Caribbean argued she failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) | Issue may be waived, but even if considered, striking experts was affirmed on the merits |
| Grant of summary judgment for lack of proximate causation | Rivera argued her injuries were caused by the fall and supported recovery | Royal Caribbean argued Rivera lacked expert medical proof linking alleged injuries to the fall | Summary judgment affirmed: expert testimony was required to establish medical causation and Rivera failed to meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Eng’g, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for admitting/excluding expert testimony)
- Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2011) (courts may enforce scheduling orders strictly)
- Bearint ex rel. Bearint v. Dorell Juvenile Grp., Inc., 389 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2004) (district court has wide latitude to exclude untimely expert submissions)
- Jurich v. Compass Marine, Inc., 764 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Am. Dredging Co. v. Lambert, 81 F.3d 127 (11th Cir. 1996) (summary judgment standard reaffirmed)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (maritime negligence elements)
- Allison v. McGhan Med. Corp., 184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999) (expert testimony required when causation is not apparent to layperson)
- Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 912 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1990) (federal maritime law governs injuries on navigable waters)