Lawes v. CSA Architects and Engineers, 963 F.3d 72

Background:

Lawes, a pedestrian, was struck and rendered quadriplegic while jaywalking near a waterfront construction zone in Old San Juan; the area had a partially open southern sidewalk and a midblock concrete barrier installed under a contractor-implemented MOT (Management of Traffic) designed by CSA.
Lawes sued multiple project parties under Puerto Rico tort law (Article 1802); he retained traffic engineer Ralph Aronberg as his sole expert to opine on pedestrian safety, the MOT design, and causation.
Aronberg produced a brief three-page preliminary report and later expanded or refined opinions in two lengthy depositions (including new opinions blaming CSA’s MOT design, proposing an orange safety fence, full sidewalk closure, and a pedestrian corridor).
During trial the district court held a 12-day Daubert hearing; defendants renewed challenges under Rule 26 (disclosure/supplementation) and Rule 702 (admissibility), and the court excluded Aronberg entirely as a sanction and on reliability grounds.
With Aronberg excluded, Lawes rested and the district court granted defendants’ Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law; Lawes appealed the exclusion and the JMOL.
The First Circuit reversed the exclusions under Rule 26 and Rule 702 as abuses of discretion, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether preclusion under Rule 26/37(c)(1) was appropriate for alleged expert-disclosure/supplementation failures	Lawes: depositions, preliminary report, and pretrial order gave defendants adequate notice; exclusion was disproportionate	Defs: Aronberg’s Daubert testimony advanced theories (e.g., orange fence, CSA design defects) not disclosed in writing, causing surprise and prejudice	Reversed — exclusion was an abuse of discretion; depositions and pretrial materials showed lack of genuine surprise; preclusion was excessive
Whether Aronberg’s testimony was admissible under Rule 702/Daubert (reliability, sufficiency of data, fit)	Lawes: Aronberg used standard traffic-engineering methodology (MUTCD/AASHTO), relied on inspections, documents, depositions; methodology admissible and challenges go to weight	Defs: Aronberg omitted key analyses and documents, failed recommended studies, and his application showed analytical gaps rendering opinions unreliable	Reversed — district court overstepped as gatekeeper; methodology and data met Daubert’s threshold and disputed weaknesses were for cross-examination/jury weight
Whether expert testimony was necessary to prove negligent-design claim as a matter of law	Lawes: expert needed to explain industry standard and causation; exclusion undermined case	Defs: design defects were different or speculative; if expert excluded, plaintiff cannot meet burden	Court did not decide merits but agreed expert testimony is ordinarily required; because exclusion reversed, merits unresolved on remand
Whether JMOL was proper after expert exclusion	Lawes: JMOL was premature and flowed from erroneous exclusion; should be vacated	Defs: with expert excluded, plaintiff lacked proof of causation and design breach, justifying JMOL	Vacated — appellate court reversed expert exclusion and therefore vacated JMOL and remanded for further proceedings

Key Cases Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping; expert testimony must be relevant and reliable)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (courts may exclude where an analytical gap exists between data and opinion)
Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola of P.R. Bottling Co., 161 F.3d 77 (First Circuit on Daubert reliability and admissibility)
Milward v. Acuity Specialty Prods. Grp., Inc., 639 F.3d 11 (flexible Daubert factors; focus on methodology not conclusions)
Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72 (preclusion under Rule 37(c)(1) reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Young v. Gordon, 330 F.3d 76 (sanctions analysis; dismissal/preclusion only for extreme or unavoidable misconduct)
Aponte-Bermúdez v. Colon, 944 F.3d 963 (Puerto Rico negligent-design suits typically require expert proof of standard of care)