McKeague v. One World Technologies, Inc.
858 F.3d 703
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- McKeague sued manufacturers/retailer after a table saw injured his hand; suit removed to federal court.
- Court entered a Rule 16 scheduling order with deadlines for fact discovery, expert disclosures, and summary-judgment practice; trial set for September 2016.
- Defendants complied with discovery; plaintiff served no discovery by the deadline and failed to retain or disclose an expert despite acknowledging expert testimony would be necessary.
- Defendants filed timely summary judgment arguing absence of expert evidence was fatal; plaintiff moved for extensions and the district court—over defendants’ objections—reopened discovery and extended deadlines once.
- Plaintiff again failed to oppose the summary-judgment motion by the extended deadline; the district court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and noncompliance with scheduling orders.
- Plaintiff’s late motion for reconsideration (twelve days after dismissal) claiming belated expert work and document delays was denied; plaintiff appealed and the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by dismissing for failure to prosecute after counsel repeatedly missed deadlines | McKeague argued counsel had retained an expert and needed more time to review documents, so dismissal was excessive | Defendants argued plaintiff repeatedly flouted deadlines, had no expert, and offered no timely, credible excuse | Court held dismissal was within district court's broad discretion given repeated failures and lack of a reasonable excuse |
| Whether court should have sua sponte extended time to oppose unopposed summary-judgment motion | McKeague asserted extension was warranted to allow expert review and opposition | Defendants argued plaintiff failed to move timely under Rule 56(d) and should not get another reprieve | Court held district court not required to sua sponte extend deadlines; Rule 56(d) relief must be timely and plaintiff slept on rights |
| Whether lesser sanctions were required before dismissal | McKeague implied dismissal was disproportionate and alternatives (monetary or deadlines) should have been used | Defendants noted court had previously granted extensions and plaintiff still failed to act | Court held district court reasonably balanced alternatives and dismissal was appropriate after prior indulgence |
| Whether absence of expert was fatal to plaintiff’s claim | McKeague suggested expert testimony could be developed and presented | Defendants argued product-liability design-defect claim required expert proof absent obvious defect to lay jurors | Court noted plaintiff conceded expert necessary, and failure to produce one undermined his case; dismissal left unopposed summary judgment as an alternative outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westford, 296 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2002) (district court may dismiss after repeated failures to obey orders)
- Vélez v. Awning Windows, Inc., 375 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2004) (courts should not permit casual flouting of deadlines)
- Malot v. Dorado Beach Cottages Assocs., 478 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2007) (dismissal inappropriate where parties offered legitimate reasons and promptly informed court)
- Hooper-Haas v. Ziegler Holdings, LLC, 690 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2012) (affirming sanctions where party willfully ignored deadlines)
- Pina v. Children’s Place, 740 F.3d 785 (1st Cir. 2014) (Rule 56(d) relief must be timely and authoritative)
- Young v. Gordon, 330 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2003) (strong presumption favoring disposition on the merits, but dismissal justified for extreme misconduct)
- Freeman v. Package Mach. Co., 865 F.2d 1331 (1st Cir. 1988) (district court has discretion in sanctions for discovery/scheduling violations)