Genereux v. Raytheon Company, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Genereux v. Raytheon Company, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/21

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1921

BARRY GENEREUX ET AL. ,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s,

v.

RAYTHEON COMPANY,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Mar k L. Wol f , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a and Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udges,and McAul i f f e, * Di st r i ct J udge.

Ruben Honi k, wi t h whom Kevi n W. Fay, Gol omb & Honi k, P. C. ,Mi chael B. Bogdanow, and Meehan, Boyl e, Bl ack & Fi t zger al d, P. C.wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.

J onat han M. Al bano, wi t h whom J ani ce W. Howe, Bi nghamMcCut chen LLP, J ames F. Kavanaugh, J r . , Ronal d M. J acobs, and Conn,Kavanaugh, Rosent hal , Pei sch & For d, LLP wer e on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

J ohn Pagl i ar o and Mar t i n J . Newhouse on br i ef f or New Engl andLegal Foundat i on and Associ at ed I ndust r i es of Massachuset t s, ami ci

cur i ae.

J une 10, 2014

*Of t he Di st r i ct of New Hampshi r e, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/21

SELYA, Circuit Judge. A f ami l i ar bi t of homespun

phi l osophy war ns of t he per i l s of at t empt i ng t o change hor ses i n

mi dst r eam. Thi s admoni t i on appl i es i n l i t i gat i on as wel l as i n

l i f e. Thus, when a l i t i gant commi t s t o a t heor y of t he case and

st i cks t o t hat t heor y past t he poi nt of no r et ur n, he cannot

t her eaf t er swi t ch t o a di f f er ent t heor y si mpl y because i t seems

mor e at t r act i ve at t he t i me. That i s among t he l essons of t hi s

appeal .

I. BACKGROUND

We rehear se t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s, who opposed summary j udgment bel ow. See RTR Techs. ,

I nc. v. Hel mi ng, 707 F. 3d 84, 87 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . I n t he pr ocess,

we r eser ve many i mpor t ant det ai l s f or our l at er di scussi on of t he

i ssues.

Ber yl l i um i s a usef ul but hazar dous subst ance, and even

modest exposur e can cause a mal ady known as Chroni c Beryl l i um

Di sease ( CBD) . Thi s mal ady, caused excl usi vel y by ber yl l i um

exposur e, i s char act er i zed by i nf l ammat i on and scar r i ng of l ung

t i ssue. I t can ser i ousl y i mpai r or gan f unct i on. Al t hough t her e i s

no known cure f or CBD, ear l y detect i on and t r eat ment can amel i orat e

i t s r avages.

The pat hogenesi s of CBD begi ns wi t h beryl l i um

sensi t i zat i on ( BeS) . Even t hough BeS i s r egarded as an abnormal

medi cal f i ndi ng, i t can be asympt omat i c and i s t ypi cal l y not

- 2-


3/21

t r eat ed. Never t hel ess, per sons wi t h BeS shoul d r ecei ve per i odi c

cl i ni cal scr eeni ngs t o det ect di sease onset . 1 Those persons who

are di agnosed wi t h BeS al one ar e at a hi gh r i sk of devel opi ng CBD

dur i ng t hei r l i f et i mes.

Si nce ear l y det ect i on of BeS i s one key t o ef f ect i ve

t r eat ment of CBD, cur r ent medi cal pr act i ce cal l s f or al l per sons

exposed t o beryl l i umabove backgr ound l evel s t o be scr eened f or BeS

ever y t hr ee t o f i ve year s usi ng a ber yl l i um l ymphocyt e

pr ol i f er at i on t est ( BeLPT) . The BeLPT somet i mes yi el ds f al se

posi t i ves, so BeS i s def i ned by no f ewer t han t wo posi t i ve BeLPT

r esul t s. Because BeS and CBD can devel op af t er a l ong l at ency

per i od, t hose per sons r egi st er i ng negat i ve BeLPT resul t s shoul d be

r e- t est ed t hr oughout t hei r l i f et i mes.

We move now f r om t he gener al t o t he speci f i c. The

pl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s case ar e var i ous member s of t he Bet t uchy,

Bal i nt , and Gener eux f ami l i es. The Bet t uchys and t he Bal i nt s ar e

t he named pl ai nt i f f s i n a put at i ve cl ass act i on f i l ed i n t he Uni t ed

St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s, i nvoki ng

f eder al di ver si t y j ur i sdi cti on under t he speci al j ur i sdi cti onal

pr ovi si ons of t he Cl ass Act i on Fai r ness Act , 28 U. S. C.

1332( d) ( 2) . Thei r compl ai nt al l eged t hat t he def endant , Raytheon

Company, endanger ed t he heal t h of t he pl ai nt i f f s and other s

1 I ndeed, some persons ar e si mul t aneousl y di agnosed wi t h BeSand CBD.

- 3-


4/21

si mi l ar l y si t uat ed by negl i gent l y exposi ng t hem t o ber yl l i um used

i n t he manuf act ur i ng pr ocess at i t s pl ant i n Wal t ham,

Massachuset t s. 2

The pl ai nt i f f s seek t o r epresent t wo proposed cl asses.

One compr i ses al l per sons who worked at t he Wal t ham pl ant f or at

l east one mont h pr i or t o December 31, 1996. The ot her compr i ses

al l per sons who l i ved wi t h member s of t he f i r st cl ass and t hus wer e

subj ect t o t ake- home ber yl l i umexposur e. Per sons al r eady di agnosed

as havi ng CBD ( l i ke Suzanne Genereux, see supra not e 2) are

excl uded f r om bot h pr oposed cl asses.

The act i on seeks t o compel Rayt heon t o est abl i sh a t r ust

f und t o f i nance appr opr i at e medi cal moni t or i ng f or bot h cl asses of

pl ai nt i f f s. As t he pl ai nt i f f s envi si on i t , such medi cal moni t or i ng

woul d i ncl ude r egul ar BeLPT t est i ng.

Fol l owi ng extensi ve pr et r i al di scover y and wor k devot ed

t o a nar r owi ng of t he i ssues, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summar y

j udgment i n f avor of Rayt heon. See Gener eux v. Har dr i c Labs. ,

I nc. , 950 F. Supp. 2d 329, 341 ( D. Mass. 2013) . Thi s t i mel y appeal

ensued.

2 The di st r i ct cour t consol i dat ed t hi s cl ass act i on wi t h an

ear l i er , non- cl ass act i on br ought by var i ous member s of t heGenereux f ami l y agai nst Rayt heon. See gener al l y Genereux v. Am.Ber yl l i a Cor p. , 577 F. 3d 350 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . By t hat t i me,Raytheon had set t l ed wi t h Suzanne Genereux ( who had cont r act edCBD) . The Gener eux pl ai nt i f f s, other t han Suzanne Gener eux, arenow named pl ai nt i f f s her e and asser t t hat t hey are encompassedwi t hi n t he cl asses t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s seek t o r epr esent .

- 4-


5/21

II. ANALYSIS

We r evi ew de novo a di st r i ct cour t ' s ent r y of summary

j udgment . See Est at e of Hevi a v. Por t r i o Cor p. , 602 F. 3d 34, 40

( 1st Ci r . 2010) . I n assessi ng t he pr opr i et y of such a di sposi t i on,

we must t ake t he r ecor d i n t he l i ght most hospi t abl e t o t he

nonmovant s ( her e, t he pl ai nt i f f s) and dr aw al l r easonabl e

i nf er ences i n t hei r f avor . See Geshke v. Cr ocs, I nc. , 740 F. 3d 74,

76 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . "I f and onl y i f t he r ecor d, vi ewed i n t hi s

l i ght , di scl oses t he absence of any genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act

and r eveal s t he movant [ ' s] ent i t l ement t o j udgment as a mat t er of

l aw, we wi l l af f i r m t he summar y j udgment or der . " Kouvchi nov v.

Par amet r i c Tech. Cor p. , 537 F. 3d 62, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ; see Fed.

R. Ci v. P. 56.

Because t hi s sui t was br ought i n di ver si t y j ur i sdi ct i on,

see 28 U. S. C. 1332( d) ( 2) , st at e l aw suppl i es t he subst ant i ve

r ul es of deci si on. See Er i e R. R. Co. v. Tompki ns, 304 U. S. 64, 78

( 1938) ; Kat z v. Per shi ng, LLC, 672 F. 3d 64, 72 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

The par t i es ( who agree on l i t t l e el se) proceed on t he shared

pr emi se t hat Massachuset t s l aw cont r ol s. Gi ven t he r easonabl eness

of t hi s pr emi se, we r eadi l y accept i t . See Kat z, 672 F. 3d at 72.

The cor nerst one of an act i on f or medi cal moni t or i ng under

Massachuset t s l aw i s t he deci si on of t he Massachuset t s Supr eme

J udi ci al Cour t ( SJ C) i n Donovan v. Phi l i p Mor r i s USA, I nc. ( Donovan

I ) , 914 N. E. 2d 891 ( Mass. 2009) . Ther e, a cl ass of pl ai nt i f f s who

- 5-


6/21

shar ed a hi st or y of at l east t went y pack- year s of smoki ng3 but who

had not yet devel oped l ung cancer , sought t o compel t he def endant

ci gar et t e manuf act ur er t o pr ovi de a cour t - super vi sed medi cal

sur vei l l ance pr ogr am f or ear l y cancer det ect i on. See i d. at 895.

Al t hough t he sui t di d not f i t t he t r adi t i onal t or t mol d because

none of t he pl ai nt i f f s act ual l y had cont r act ed cancer , t he SJ C

acknowl edged t hat Massachuset t s t or t l aw "must adapt t o t he gr owi ng

r ecogni t i on t hat exposur e t o t oxi c subst ances and r adi at i on may

cause subst ant i al i nj ur y whi ch shoul d be compensabl e even i f t he

f ul l ef f ect s ar e not i mmedi at el y appar ent . " I d. at 901. The cour t

went on t o rul e t hat t he cost of medi cal moni t or i ng may be

r ecover abl e i n a t or t sui t under Massachuset t s l aw. See i d.

The Donovan I cour t t ook pai ns t o t et her i t s hol di ng t o

a doct r i nal moor i ng: a combi nat i on of t he def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o

meet an appr opr i ate st andard of care, a causal connect i on bet ween

t hat f ai l ur e and t he pl ai nt i f f s' i nj ur i es, and r esul t i ng damages.

See i d. at 898- 99. To i dent i f y t he i nj ur y i n t he absence of

evi dence t hat a pl ai nt i f f act ual l y has cancer , t he cour t was

caref ul t o demand a showi ng t hat some subcel l ul ar or other

physi ol ogi cal change has put hi m at i ncreased r i sk. See i d. at

901- 02. Under t he cause of act i on r ecogni zed i n Donovan I ,

3 As t he SJ C used t he t er m, "pack- year " i s t he pr oduct of t henumber of year s smoked and t he aver age number of packs ofci garet t es smoked per day over t hat per i od. See Donovan I , 914N. E. 2d at 895 n. 6. For exampl e, t hr ee years of smoki ng an averageof t wo packs per day woul d be si x pack- years.

- 6-


7/21

i ncr eased epi demi ol ogi cal r i sk of i l l ness caused by exposur e,

unaccompani ed by some subcel l ul ar or other physi ol ogi cal change, i s

not enough t o per mi t r ecover y i n t or t .

Beyond t hi s par t i cul ar cause of act i on, t he SJ C r umi nat ed

about anot her possi bi l i t y. I t ponder ed whet her , i f a manuf act ur er

exposes a per son t o a danger ous car ci nogen, a cause of act i on f or

medi cal moni t or i ng woul d l i e even though no subcel l ul ar or ot her

physi ol ogi cal change had yet occur r ed. I d. at 901. The cour t made

no r ul i ng on t hi s hypot het i cal set of f acts but , r at her , l ef t t he

quest i on "f or anot her day. " I d.

Agai nst t hi s backdr op, we t ur n t o t he pl ai nt i f f s'

assi gnment s of er r or .

A. The Plaintiffs' Principal Theory: Subcellular Change.

The pl ai nt i f f s begi n wi t h a cl ai m t hat t hei r case f i t s

snugl y wi t hi n t he conf i nes of Donovan I . The di st r i ct cour t

di sagr eed. See Genereux, 950 F. Supp. 2d at 340- 41. The t est i mony

of t he pl ai nt i f f s' mai n exper t , Dr . Lee S. Newman, si t s at t he

f ul crum of t he di sput e.

Dr . Newman opi ned t hat BeS i s t he f i r st mani f est at i on of

subcel l ul ar change r esul t i ng f r omber yl l i umexposur e. He expl ai ned

t hat , i f t he ent i r e member shi p of bot h of t he pr oposed pl ai nt i f f

cl asses were t o be t est ed, somewher e bet ween one per cent and t went y

percent of t hose persons woul d be f ound t o have BeS. Si nce

ber yl l i umexposur e i s t he onl y known cause of BeS, t hi s one per cent

- 7-


8/21

t o t went y per cent l i kel i hood put s t he pl ai nt i f f cl asses at

appr eci abl y hi gher r i sk of cont r act i ng CBD t han a r andoml y sel ect ed

basel i ne popul at i on.

Dr . Newman coul d not conf i r m, however , t hat any named

pl ai nt i f f had as yet cont r act ed BeS. 4 By t he same t oken, he coul d

not i dent i f y any par t i cul ar member of ei t her cl ass known t o have

devel oped BeS.

The pl ai nt i f f s al so poi nt t o t hei r exper t ' s t est i mony

t hat al l pl ai nt i f f s "ar e now at a si gni f i cant l y i ncr eased r i sk f or

t he devel opment of ber yl l i umr el at ed heal t h ef f ect s i n r el at i on t o

an unexposed popul at i on. " I n mai nt ai ni ng t hat t hi s t est i mony i s

suf f i ci ent t o br i ng t hem wi t hi n t he compass of Donovan I , t hey t r y

t o dr aw a par al l el t o exper t opi ni on pr ovi ded at a l at er st age of

t he Donovan l i t i gat i on. Thi s ef f or t f ai l s.

I n Donovan I , t he SJ C answer ed quest i ons t r ansmi t t ed by

a f eder al di st r i ct cour t . See Mass. S. J . C. Rul e 1: 03. I n i t s

subsequent cl ass cer t i f i cat i on r ul i ng, t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t

4 The pl ai nt i f f s not e t hat one of t he named pl ai nt i f f s, Cl ai r eBal i nt , exper i enced a si ngl e posi t i ve BeLPT r esul t , whi ch t hey saymay be i ndi cat i ve of subcel l ul ar change. Thi s obser vat i on i sbesi de any r el evant poi nt f or at l east t wo r easons. Fi r st , i t wasnot r el i ed on bel ow and, t hus, i t has no t r act i on her e. See

Teamst er s Uni on, Local No. 59 v. Super l i ne Tr ansp. Co. , 953 F. 2d17, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( "I f any pr i nci pl e i s set t l ed i n t hi sci r cui t , i t i s t hat , absent t he most ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ances,l egal t heor i es not r ai sed squar el y i n t he l ower cour t cannot bebr oached f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal . ") . Second, t he pl ai nt i f f s'own exper t t est i f i ed t hat BeS i s def i ned by two posi t i ve BeLPTs;one i s not enough t o show subcel l ul ar change.

- 8-


9/21

r el i ed on exper t t est i mony that "ever yone wi t h a t went y pack- year

smoki ng hi st or y has suf f er ed subcel l ul ar har m [ whi ch] necessar i l y

mean[ s] i ncr eased r i sk of l ung cancer . " Donovan v. Phi l i p Mor r i s

USA, I nc. ( Donovan I I ) , 268 F. R. D. 1, 16 ( D. Mass. 2010) ( emphasi s

i n or i gi nal ) . Her e, however , t he cl ass member s shar e no such

uni ver sal har m. I n shar p cont r ast t o Donovan I I , t he exper t

t est i mony i n t hi s case shows onl y that ever y pl ai nt i f f f aces a

"si gni f i cant l y i ncreased r i sk" of har m. Ri sk and har m ar e t wo

mat er i al l y di f f er ent concept s, and Dr . Newman di scl ai med any

abi l i t y t o st at e t hat any one pl ai nt i f f , named or ot her wi se, had

al r eady suf f er ed har m( t hat i s, subcel l ul ar or ot her physi ol ogi cal

change) . Donovan I I i s, t her ef or e, of no hel p t o t he pr esent

pl ai nt i f f s.

The bot t om l i ne i s t hat t he summar y j udgment r ecor d

di scl oses no evi dence that any pl ai nt i f f named or unnamed,

empl oyee cl ass or t ake- home cl ass has as yet devel oped BeS. Thi s

gap i n t he pr oof i s f at al t o t he pl ai nt i f f s ' pr i nci pal t heor y of

l i abi l i t y. The pl ai nt i f f s bear t he bur den of pr oduci ng evi dence

suf f i ci ent t o pr ecl ude summar y j udgment , see Cer t ai n I nt er est ed

Under wr i t er s at Ll oyd' s, London v. St ol ber g, 680 F. 3d 61, 65 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) , and t hey have not carr i ed t hat bur den her e. Donovan I

def i nes act i onabl e i nj ur y i n t he medi cal moni t or i ng mi l i eu i n t er ms

of subcel l ul ar or ot her physi ol ogi cal change, see 914 N. E. 2d at

- 9-


10/21


11/21

To begi n, t he cour t l i st ed t hi s r equi r ement as t he t hi r d

of seven el ement s of t he appr oved cause of act i on. See i d. at 902.

Lat er i n t he opi ni on ( when di scussi ng t he appl i cat i on of st at ut es

of l i mi t at i ons) , t he cour t r ef er enced "physi ol ogi cal change" as a

t r i gger i ng poi nt f or accrual of t he cause of act i on. I d. at 903.

To ci nch mat t er s, t he cour t made i t abundant l y cl ear t hat i t had

consi der ed t he possi bi l i t y of al l owi ng a cause of act i on based on

mer e i ncr eased r i sk, but opt ed t o l eave t hat quest i on " f or anot her

day. " I d. at 901.

Wher e st at e t or t l aw i s at i ssue, pol i cy consi der at i ons

ar e best r econci l ed by st at e cour t s. The SJ C i s t he f i nal ar bi t er

of Massachuset t s l aw, and a f eder al cour t si t t i ng i n di ver si t y

j ur i sdi ct i on has no r ovi ng wr i t t o r ewr i t e t hat cour t ' s

pr onouncement s about st at e l aw. See J ones v. Secor d, 684 F. 3d 1,

10- 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Nor can a f eder al cour t make an end r un

ar ound t hi s boundar y by r el abel i ng as di ct um what i s undeni abl y a

par t of a st at e cour t ' s hol di ng. Consequent l y, we decl i ne t he

pl ai nt i f f s' br ash i nvi t at i on t o cast asi de t he SJ C' s unambi guous

l anguage.

The second branch of t he pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument i mpl i cat es

t he quest i on t hat t he SJ C "l e[ f t ] f or anot her day, " t hat i s, t he

quest i on of whet her a cause of act i on f or medi cal moni t or i ng mi ght

l i e when "no sympt oms or subcl i ni cal changes have occur r ed. "

Donovan I , 914 N. E. 2d at 901. Thi s i s pr eci sel y t he pl ai nt i f f s'

- 11-


12/21

si t uat i on, but t he cour t bel ow concl uded t hat t hey had not

pr eser ved a cl ai munder t hi s al t er nat i ve t heor y. See Gener eux, 950

F. Supp. 2d at 340. Accor di ngl y, t he cour t r ef used t o consi der t he

cl ai m on i t s mer i t s. See i d.

I n r eachi ng t he concl usi on t hat t he pot ent i al t heor y of

l i abi l i t y t hat t he SJ C had "l e[ f t ] f or anot her day" had not been

pr eser ved, t he cour t r el i ed heavi l y on a st at us conf er ence hel d

af t er t he summary j udgment mot i on had been f ul l y br i ef ed ( but

bef or e i t was ar gued) . See i d. at 333- 34. At t hat conf er ence,

whi ch was desi gned t o f r ame t he i ssues pr esent ed by t he pendi ng

summary j udgment mot i on, t he cour t st at ed i t s underst andi ng t hat no

cl ai m based on t he quest i on t hat t he SJ C had "l e[ f t ] f or anot her

day" was bei ng pr essed. Pl ai nt i f f s' counsel agr eed unr eser vedl y.

See i d.

The pl ai nt i f f s l abor t o r ei nvent t he Apr i l 26, 2013

st at us conf er ence: t hey t el l us t hat no such di scl ai mer t ook pl ace.

But t he di st r i ct cour t wi sel y ar r anged t o have a cour t r epor t er

r ecor d t he st at us conf er ence, and t he t r anscr i pt bel i es t he

pl ai nt i f f s ' exer ci se i n r evi s i oni st hi stor y.

The di st r i ct cour t was met i cul ous i n express i ng i t s

under st andi ng of t he scope of t he act i on. The cour t st at ed i t s

under st andi ng not once, but r epeat edl y; and pl ai nt i f f s' counsel

concurr ed i n t he cour t ' s st at ement each and every t i me. Exampl es

- 12-


13/21

ar e r i f e. For pr esent pur poses, however , we t hi nk i t suf f i ces t o

of f er a f ew i l l ustr at i ons.

C The cour t t wi ce descr i bed t he i ssue t hat Donovan

I l ef t open and st at ed t hat i t di d not r ead t he

pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt as pr esent i ng t hat i ssue.

Pl ai nt i f f s' counsel agr eed.

C The cour t not ed t hat shoul d Rayt heon prevai l on

i t s summar y j udgment mot i on, " t he pl ai nt i f f s

mi ght be abl e t o f i l e anot her case . . . on

behal f of a cl ass whi ch has not exper i enced

subcel l ul ar change. " To t hi s, pl ai nt i f f s '

counsel r esponded t hat t he cour t had mapped out

"an emi nent l y reasonabl e way t o pr oceed. "

C Af t er some pot ent i al l y conf usi ng di al ogue, t he

cour t once agai n sai d t hat i t di d not r egar d t he

i ssue l ef t open by Donovan I as pr oper l y bef or e

i t . Pl ai nt i f f s ' counsel repl i ed: " I t hi nk t hat ' s

r i ght , J udge . . . I mean, i n candor , i f you wer e

t o det ermi ne, on a summary j udgment basi s, t hat

one or another of t he el ement s f r om [ Donovan I ]

can' t be sat i sf i ed i n t he case, t hen I t hi nk i t

woul d be di sposi t i ve. "

C The di st r i ct j udge l at er conf i r med t hat " I don' t

pl an t o deci de t he i ssue t he SJ C sai d i t ' l ef t

- 13-


14/21

f or anot her day' " and r ei t er at ed t hat , on t he

summar y j udgment mot i on, he woul d be deci di ng

whet her or not t he pl ai nt i f f s had made out a

genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act as t o t he seven

el ement s speci f i ed i n Donovan I . Pl ai nt i f f s'

counsel r ej oi ned: "I agr ee, your Honor . . . . "

C Usi ng a bel t and suspender s appr oach, t he j udge

agai n sought assur ances t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s'

t heor y of t he case requi r ed pr oof of al r eady-

i ncur r ed subcel l ul ar changes. Pl ai nt i f f s'

counsel pr ovi ded such an assur ance, r espondi ng

t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s ' cl ai m was that subcel l ul ar

changes wer e al r eady pr esent . He cont i nued, " I

t hi nk t he [ case i s] st i l l wi t hi n t he descr i pt i on

of [ Donovan I ] . . . . [ Y] ou may t el l me t hat

. . . t he case r eal l y does squar el y f al l wi t hi n

t he quest i on t hat [ Donovan I ] di dn' t r each.

Today I don' t t hi nk t hat ' s t he case . . . . "

I n compl ex cases, consi der at i ons of bot h f ai r ness and

ef f i ci ency di ctat e t hat a t r i al j udge use hi s best ef f or t s t o

wi nnow and cl ar i f y t he i ssues. I n t hi s case, J udge Wol f di d

exact l y what was r equi r ed. He was r el ent l ess i n hi s i nsi st ence on

ensur i ng t hat t he part i es shared a common vi si on of what i ssues

wer e t o be adj udi cat ed; and he was f ul l y ent i t l ed t o r el y on

- 14-


15/21

counsel ' s r epeated assur ances t hat t he i ssue t hat t he Donovan I

cour t had " l e[ f t ] f or anot her day" was not i n t he case.

Pl ai nt i f f s' counsel had mul t i pl e oppor t uni t i es t o expound

a t heory of t he case t hat encompassed t hi s i ssue. He l i kewi se had

mul t i pl e oppor t uni t i es t o cor r ect t he j udge' s r epeat ed decl ar at i ons

t hat t he mot i on f or summary j udgment di d not r equi r e adj udi cat i on

of t he quest i on t hat t he SJ C had "l e[ f t ] f or anot her day. "

Pl ai nt i f f s ' counsel l et al l of t hese oppor t uni t i es sl i de. And f ar

f r om di sput i ng t he cour t ' s under st andi ng, counsel embr aced i t .

To be sure, t here ar e sni ppet s i n t he t r anscr i pt t hat , i f

t aken i n i sol at i on, mi ght sow t he seeds of doubt . But cont ext i s

i mpor t ant , and t he st at us conf er ence t r anscr i pt , r ead as a whol e,

i s t r anspar ent l y cl ear : t he pl ai nt i f f s t ol d t he cour t t hat t hey

were not pur sui ng a theor y based on t he quest i on t hat t he SJ C had

"l e[ f t ] f or anot her day. " The t r anscri pt cannot f ai r l y be r ead i n

any ot her way.

Ther e i s one l oose end. The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue weakl y t hat

t he i ssue t hat t he SJ C "l e[ f t ] f or anot her day" was r ai sed ( and

t hus preserved) i n t he amended cl ass compl ai nt and/ or t hei r wr i t t en

opposi t i on t o Rayt heon' s mot i on f or summary j udgment . But bot h t he

amended cl ass compl ai nt and t he wr i t t en opposi t i on were f i l ed wel l

bef or e t he st at us conf er ence, and, i n al l event s, t he par t i cul ar

passages t o whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s al l ude ar e f r ei ght ed wi t h

- 15-


16/21

ambi gui t i es. Onl y t he most f l at t er i ng r eadi ng of t hose paper s

l ends t he sl i ght est suppor t t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' cur r ent cl ai ms.

I n t he end, we need not par se t hese paper s. At t he

st at us conf er ence, pl ai nt i f f s' counsel t i me and agai n expr essl y

r epr esent ed t o t he cour t t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s' case depended on

t hei r abi l i t y t o pr ove subcel l ul ar change. As we have sai d bef or e

( and t oday reaf f i r m) , " [ w] e consi der an expr ess r epr esent at i on by

an of f i cer of t he cour t t o be a sol emn under t aki ng, bi ndi ng on t he

cl i ent . " CMM Cabl e Rep. , I nc. v. Ocean Coast Pr ops. , I nc. , 48 F. 3d

618, 622 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ; accor d Ungar v. Ar af at , 634 F. 3d 46, 50

n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Coady, 809 F. 2d 119, 121 ( 1st

Ci r . 1987) .

The shor t of i t i s t hat , dur i ng t he st at us conf er ence,

counsel made cl ear and af f i r mat i ve r epr esent at i ons t o t he ef f ect

t hat t he i ssue of whet her a cause of act i on f or medi cal moni t or i ng

mi ght l i e wi t hout pr oof of subcel l ul ar or ot her physi ol ogi cal

change was not i n t he case. Wher e, as here, counsel makes such

r epr esent at i ons t o t he t r i al cour t and t o t he l awyer s f or t he

opposi ng par t y, nei t her he nor hi s cl i ent s can compl ai n when t he

t r i al cour t t akes t hem at t hei r wor d. See Uncl e Henr y' s I nc. v.

Pl aut Consul t i ng Co. , 399 F. 3d 33, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ; cf . Ri ver a-

Vel zquez v. Har t f or d St eam Boi l er I nsp. & I ns. Co. , ___ F. 3d ___ ,

___ ( 1st Ci r . 2014) [ No. 13- 1301, sl i p op. at 10] ( expl ai ni ng t hat

" i n l i t i gat i on mat t er s, l awyer s act f or t hei r cl i ent s, " wi t h t he

- 16-


17/21

r esul t t hat t he l awyer ' s act i ons ar e cust omar i l y bi ndi ng on t he

par t y) . Thus, t he r epr esent at i ons made at t he st at us conf er ence

over r ode any cont r ary suggest i on t hat mi ght have been cont ai ned i n

t he pl ai nt i f f s' ear l i er f i l i ngs.

That ends t hi s aspect of t he mat t er . The pl ai nt i f f s made

a st r at egi c deci si on t o pr ess a theor y of t he case t hat r el i ed on

t he el ement s of t he cause of act i on expl i ci t l y recogni zed i n

Donovan I . That t heory havi ng f ai l ed, t hey cannot now di savow

t hei r ear l i er deci si on and at t empt t o change hor ses mi dst r eam i n

hopes of f i ndi ng a swi f t er st eed.

C. The Disputed Procedural Ruling.

Ther e i s one f i nal i ssue, whi ch i nvol ves t he di mensi ons

of t he summary j udgment r ecor d. For t he pur pose of opposi ng

summary j udgment , t he pl ai nt i f f s want ed t o rel y upon a suppl ement al

exper t wi t ness decl ar at i on ( t he 2012 Decl ar at i on) submi t t ed t o t he

di str i ct cour t i n suppor t of t hei r mot i on f or c l ass cer t i f i cat i on.

Rayt heon count er ed by movi ng to st r i ke t he 2012 Decl arat i on f r om

t he summary j udgment r ecor d. I n i t s mot i on, Rayt heon not ed t hat

t he 2012 Decl arat i on had not been f i l ed unt i l some t hi r t een mont hs

af t er t he deadl i ne f or exper t wi t ness submi ssi ons agr eed t o by t he

par t i es and conf i r med i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s schedul i ng or der .

The di st r i ct cour t grant ed t he mot i on t o st r i ke.

- 17-


18/21

The pl ai nt i f f s assi gn er r or . 5 They argue t hat t hei r

r el i ance on t he t ar di l y f i l ed 2012 Decl ar at i on wor ked no pr ej udi ce.

For good r eason, t he Ci vi l Rul es cede consi der abl e

cont r ol over di scover y t o di st r i ct cour t s. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 16,

26, 37. Thi s web of r ul es "per mi t s di st r i ct cour t s, among ot her

t hi ngs, t o set t empor al deadl i nes f or t he i dent i f i cat i on of exper t s

and t he di scl osur e of t hei r opi ni ons. " Mar t nez- Ser r ano v. Qual i t y

Heal t h Ser vs. of P. R. , I nc. , 568 F. 3d 278, 283 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

When a par t y f l out s such a deadl i ne, one cust omary r emedy i s

pr ecl usi on. See Macaul ay v. Anas, 321 F. 3d 45, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ;

Thi beaul t v. Square D Co. , 960 F. 2d 239, 246- 48 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ;

see al so Fed. R. Ci v. P. 37( c) ( 1) . But pr ecl usi on i s not

aut omat i c, and a l apse may be excused i f t he cour t determi nes t hat ,

i n t he par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances, a di f f er ent r emedy i s mor e

condi gn. See Macaul ay, 321 F. 3d at 50; see al so Fed. R. Ci v. P.

37(c)(1)(C).

We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s choi ce of sanct i on f or l at e

submi ssi ons under a def er ent i al abuse of di scr et i on st andar d. See

Macaul ay, 321 F. 3d at 51 ( ci t i ng Nat ' l Hockey League v. Met r o.

Hockey Cl ub, I nc. , 427 U. S. 639, 642 ( 1976) ( per cur i am) ) . I n

5 At sundr y t i mes, t he pl ai nt i f f s i nvei gh agai nst t he di st r i ctcour t f or r ej ect i ng t hei r at t empt t o f i l e an unt i mel y andunaut hor i zed sur r epl y br i ef and f or denyi ng t hei r r equest t opr esent l i ve evi dence at t he hear i ng on summary j udgment . Theser emonst r ances ar e unaccompani ed by any devel oped ar gument at i on and,t her ef ore, we deem t hem wai ved. See Uni t ed St ates v. Zanni no, 895F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) .

- 18-


19/21

conduct i ng t hi s t ami sage, we consi der t he t ot al i t y of t he

ci r cumst ances, i ncl udi ng t he over al l hi st or y of t he l i t i gat i on, t he

i mpor t ance of t he pr ecl uded evi dence, t he j ust i f i cat i on ( or l ack of

j ust i f i cat i on) f or t he del ay, t he nat ure and ext ent of prej udi ce t o

t he ot her si de, and t he i mpact of t he f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h t he

di scover y deadl i ne on t he di st r i ct cour t ' s docket . See Esposi t o v.

Home Depot U. S. A. , I nc. , 590 F. 3d 72, 78 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Her e,

t he pl ai nt i f f s f ocus wi t h l aser - l i ke i nt ensi t y on an asser t ed l ack

of pr ej udi ce.

The pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument mi sses t he mar k f or at l east

t hr ee r easons. Fi r st , t he pr esence or absence of pr ej udi ce i s onl y

one of a myr i ad of f act ors t hat shoul d be consi der ed. See i d. The

pl ai nt i f f s vi r t ual l y i gnor e al l of t he ot her r el evant f act or s and,

cri t i cal l y, pr of f er no expl anat i on at al l f or t he l at e submi ssi on.

See Macaul ay, 321 F. 3d at 52 ( af f i r mi ng pr ecl usi on wher e " t he

appel l ant ha[ d] not advanced any r eal j ust i f i cat i on f or [ t he] t ar dy

emergence" of a new expert r epor t ) .

Second, t he di st r i ct cour t coul d r easonabl y have

concl uded that pr ej udi ce t o Rayt heon woul d resul t f r omal l owi ng t he

pl ai nt i f f s t o use t he out - of - t i me 2012 Decl ar at i on. Af t er al l ,

Rayt heon deposed t he exper t and pr obed hi s opi ni ons l ong bef ore t he

2012 Decl arat i on emerged, and t hat ground woul d have t o be

r epast i nat ed i n l i ght of t he exper t ' s newl y advanced posi t i on. See

Sant i ago- D az v. Labor at or i o Cl ni co Y De Ref er enci a Del Est e, 456

- 19-


20/21

F. 3d 272, 277 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( wei ghi ng need t o r edo di scover y as

par t of anal ysi s of pr ej udi ce) . So, t oo, i t s own exper t s l i kel y

woul d have t o be r e- i nt ervi ewed. Taki ng new deposi t i ons and r e-

i nt er vi ewi ng exper t s woul d undoubt edl y i ncr ease Rayt heon' s

expenses, a ci r cumst ance t hat can be consi der ed as part of t he

pr ej udi ce cal cul us. See i d. ; Pr i mus v. Uni t ed St at es, 389 F. 3d

231, 236 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

Last but f ar f r om l east t he pl ai nt i f f s ' ar gument

over l ooks "t he cour t ' s [ st r ong] i ndependent i nt er est i n

admi ni st er i ng i t s docket . " Tower Vent ur es, I nc. v. Ci t y of

West f i el d, 296 F. 3d 43, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . Thi s i s compl ex cl ass

acti on l i t i gat i on, and t he di st r i ct cour t has t he r i ght i ndeed,

t he dut y t o ensur e t hat such l i t i gat i on pr oceeds i n an or der l y

manner . Hol di ng t he par t i es t o t he st r i ct ur es of a schedul i ng

or der hel ps t o achi eve t hi s goal .

To say mor e woul d be poi nt l ess . Gi ven t he t ot al i t y of

t he ci r cumst ances, i t beggar s credul i t y f or t he pl ai nt i f f s t o ar gue

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scr et i on i n st r i ki ng t he

egr egi ousl y l at e 2012 Decl ar at i on. 6

6 At t he expense of cart i ng coal t o Newcast l e, we add t hatal l owi ng consi der at i on of t he 2012 Decl arat i on woul d have been

unl i kel y t o af f ect t he di sposi t i on of t he case. The pl ai nt i f f si nvi t e us t o r ead t he decl ar at i on' s ambi guous st at ement t hat"ber yl l i um causes subcel l ul ar changes" t o mean t hat ber yl l i umal ways causes subcel l ul ar changes. However , we agr ee wi t h t hedi st r i ct cour t t hat , r ead i n t he cont ext of t he decl ar at i on as awhol e, t he st at ement i s bet t er under st ood t o mean t hat ber yl l i umcan cause subcel l ul ar changes. See Genereux, 950 F. Supp. 2d at

- 20-


21/21

III. CONCLUSION

We need go no f ur t her . We appl aud t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

handl i ng of t hi s compl i cat ed case and, f or t he r easons el uci dat ed

above, t he j udgment i s

Affirmed.

337 n. 3. Under st ood i n t hi s sensi bl e way, t he 2012 Decl ar at i onadds not hi ng t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' assever at i onal ar r ay.

- 21-

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Genereux v. Raytheon Company, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents