Steven Kallal v. CIBA Vision Corporation
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2987
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Steven Kallal wore CIBA O2 Optix contact lenses beginning with a sample (Dec 2006) and purchased lenses from Rose Optical (Jan–May 2007); he stopped wearing them after May 5, 2007, after experiencing eye pain.
- In Jan 2007 CIBA issued a large voluntary recall of certain O2 Optix lots for low ion permeability (reduced oxygen transmission); some recalled lots were shipped to Rose Optical.
- Kallal sued CIBA in Illinois state court (May 2009) asserting negligence, strict product liability, and breach of implied warranty; CIBA removed to federal court under diversity jurisdiction.
- During discovery CIBA produced business records showing none of the recalled lots shipped to Rose Optical matched Kallal’s -3.75 prescription; Kallal admitted he purchased only from Rose Optical.
- District court granted summary judgment for CIBA, concluding Kallal offered insufficient evidence that he used recalled or defective lenses and denied additional discovery under Rule 56(d).
- Kallal appealed, challenging (1) existence of genuine factual disputes, (2) denial of additional discovery, and (3) district court comments about MDA preemption; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine issue that Kallal used recalled/defective lenses | Kallal: circumstantial evidence (large recall, lenses from same Batam plant) makes it plausible his lenses were recalled/defective | CIBA: records show no recalled lots matching Kallal’s prescription shipped to Rose Optical; no direct proof he used recalled lenses | No genuine dispute; summary judgment for CIBA affirmed |
| Whether Kallal presented expert/medical evidence tying his injury to defective lenses | Kallal: physician and engineer said injuries could be caused by low ion permeability | CIBA: experts’ statements were hypothetical and did not connect Kallal’s specific lenses to the defect | Evidence insufficient to show causation specific to Kallal’s lenses |
| Whether denial of further discovery under Rule 56(d) was an abuse of discretion | Kallal: needed to depose CIBA’s interim head of distribution to challenge business records | CIBA: discovery already provided and prior deposition of head of distribution was available | Denial affirmed; Kallal failed to provide required Rule 56(d) affidavit and court acted within discretion |
| Whether state-law claims were preempted by the MDA / Riegel exception applies | Kallal: claims parallel because CIBA omitted ion permeability as a material characteristic in PMA | CIBA: FDA did not require ion permeability threshold; preemption not reached | Court’s preemption discussion was dicta; decision rests on lack of proof Kallal used recalled/defective lenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanover Ins. Co. v. N. Bldg. Co., 751 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard of de novo review on summary judgment)
- Samuelson v. LaPorte Cmty. Sch. Corp., 526 F.3d 1046 (7th Cir. 2008) (appellate court may affirm on any supported ground)
- Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2000) (failure to submit Rule 56(d) affidavit can justify denial of additional discovery)
- Stevo v. Frasor, 662 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2011) (district court has broad discretion to manage and cut off discovery)
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (U.S. 2008) (MDA preemption of state tort claims except for parallel claims)
- United States v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291 (7th Cir. 1988) (discussion of dicta that can be disregarded)