321 F.R.D. 35
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Kathleen Martin tripped on a wrinkled floor mat in the Omni Shoreham Hotel lobby in 2014, suffering serious injuries; the mat and some video/photos were preserved but full footage was not saved.
- Martin does not dispute that the wrinkle caused the trip; her claim was that Omni was negligent either because the mat was laid with the wrinkle or Omni had actual/constructive notice and failed to remediate it.
- Martin’s negligence case relied largely on expert Lawrence Dinoff, who opined the mat has "short-term memory" and that wrinkles would take "hours and hours, if not days" to form, but he provided little factual or methodological foundation for the time estimate.
- The district court granted Omni summary judgment, finding Dinoff’s opinion speculative and unsupported by factual basis sufficient to let a reasonable jury infer Omni’s negligence.
- Martin timely moved for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), seeking to submit a supplemental affidavit expanding the basis for Dinoff’s opinion and arguing manifest injustice from the court’s prior ruling.
- The court denied reconsideration, holding (1) the supplemental affidavit was not "newly available" evidence and could have been presented earlier, and (2) Martin failed to show clear error or manifest injustice because Dinoff’s conclusory time estimate lacked an adequate factual or methodological foundation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 59(e) relief is warranted to alter summary judgment | Martin: relief needed because Dinoff’s expert opinion was unchallenged and supplemental affidavit supplies the foundation | Omni: supplemental affidavit is previously available evidence; prior summary judgment was correct because expert lacked foundation | Denied — no newly available evidence and no clear error or manifest injustice |
| Whether the supplemental affidavit may be admitted as "new evidence" under Rule 59(e) | Martin: affidavit explains Dinoff’s methods and was not previously required because defense did not probe basis | Omni: Martin had access to her expert and could have presented this material earlier; strategic lapse by defense doesn’t make evidence newly available | Denied — affidavit was previously available and Rule 59(e) does not permit relitigation of matters that could have been raised earlier |
| Whether Dinoff’s expertise alone suffices to create a triable issue | Martin: Dinoff’s qualifications and depositions establish sufficient basis | Omni: qualifications do not cure lack of factual/methodological support for the specific timing opinion | Held that expertise without an adequate foundation is insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether the court committed clear error in concluding Dinoff’s opinion was speculative | Martin: court erred by overlooking statements indicating mat construction supports the timing opinion | Omni: record lacks testing, data, or methodology supporting hours/days conclusion | Court found no clear error; expert’s conclusory statements lack the factual basis required to avoid summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Niedermeier v. Office of Baucus, 153 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2001) (Rule 59(e) relief limited to newly discovered evidence, change in law, or clear error; movant must show evidence was previously unavailable)
- Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Rule 59(e) motions disfavored; standard for relief)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Rule 59(e) relief only for intervening change of law, new evidence, or to correct clear error/manifest injustice)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standards and the need for the nonmoving party to present evidence on each element)
- Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 966 F.2d 1464 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (expert affidavits defeat summary judgment when tied to available scientific or documentary support)
- New York State Ophthalmological Soc. v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 1379 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (expert opinions lacking record facts cannot alone defeat summary judgment)
- Merit Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 569 F.2d 666 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (expert opinion based only on theoretical speculation insufficient to preclude summary judgment)