Meaghin Jordan v. Maxfield & Oberton Hold, 977 F.3d 412

Background

M&O manufactured and sold small, powerful neodymium "Buckyball" magnets; prior to 2010 they were marketed for ages 13+ and exceeded the ASTM F963 strength limit for children’s magnets.
In 2010 the CPSC required label changes; M&O relabeled Buckyballs in 2011 to warn they were not intended for children.
In March 2011 the Jordans purchased a set; in April 2012 their toddler Braylon swallowed eight magnets and suffered severe gastric and intestinal injuries.
The Jordans sued M&O in 2015 under Mississippi Product Liability Act (MPLA) alleging defective design (they did not press failure-to-warn at trial); MPLA requires defect be judged by manufacturer’s knowledge at time product left control.
The district court largely excluded post-sale evidence (CPSC actions and regulatory developments after the 2011 sale); trial proceeded, jury returned verdict for M&O, and the district court denied Rule 59 (new trial) and Rule 60(b)(3) motions.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed: exclusion of post-sale evidence was not prejudicial under the MPLA, plaintiffs failed to preserve/proffer bias evidence, and a belated request for a preemption-based jury instruction/amendment to the pretrial order was properly denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of post-sale evidence (Rule 59/new trial)	Exclusion prevented full presentation and cross-examination on whether product was a children’s toy and defective	MPLA confines defect inquiry to manufacturer’s knowledge at time of sale; post-sale evidence irrelevant and prejudicial	Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; MPLA limits inquiry to time of sale, exclusion not prejudicial
Rule 60(b)(3) — misrepresentation / expert bias	Exclusion let M&O mislead jury about CPSC’s view and hid expert Nord’s bias/connections to M&O	Plaintiffs had public bias evidence at trial but failed to proffer it for admission; no concealed misrepresentation by M&O	Affirmed — plaintiffs failed to proffer bias evidence at trial so cannot show they were deprived of fair presentation
Preemption jury instruction / amend pretrial order	ASTM F963 (50 Gauss children’s magnet standard) should operate as federal rule of decision to show defect	Claim/argument was untimely, not included in pretrial order, would unfairly surprise M&O and require new discovery	Affirmed — court properly denied belated amendment/instruction; no manifest injustice and substantial prejudice to M&O likely
Reliance on Muzyka (admission of subsequent remedial measures)	Muzyka requires admission of post-accident remedial measures for impeachment	Muzyka distinguishable: plaintiffs didn’t move to revisit exclusion, and MPLA makes post-sale evidence immaterial	Affirmed — Muzyka not controlling; post-sale evidence properly excluded under MPLA constraints

Key Cases Cited

Benson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 889 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 59 denial)
Sibley v. Lemaire, 184 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 1999) (new-trial prejudice burden and standards)
Muzyka v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 774 F.2d 1309 (5th Cir. 1985) (admission of subsequent remedial measures for impeachment in distinguishable facts)
Noah v. Gen. Motors Corp., 882 So.2d 235 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (MPLA duty/danger inquiries are limited to knowledge at time of sale)
In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 888 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 2018) (Rule 60(b)(3) relief where plaintiffs concealed expert-compensation information)
Quick Techs., Inc. v. Sage Grp. PLC, 313 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2002) (district court’s broad discretion to alter pretrial orders)
DP Sols., Inc. v. Rollins, Inc., 353 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 2003) (factors for permitting amendment of pretrial order)
In re Deepwater Horizon, 934 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for Rule 60 denial)