distributed by the defendant pickle corporation in this case as a result he had extensive physical and psychological problems usually before this court is whether the issue before this court is the one you just he lied because you just said as a result he had particular problems but the district judge found that there was no evidence of causation in the record that's why you lost your santa shula way the reason why you lost right the reason we lost was that the district court judge excluded plaintiffs treating doctors as expert witnesses in this case who were five primary treating doctors were they ever tender to say expert witnesses we believe they were around or under rule twenty six eight to see we previously disclosed in this witnesses we provided written opinion reports from four of the experts to counsel for defendant as part of a rule twenty six flurry disclosure and those written opinions cover causation the written cyanide poisoning dr gary elliott you know your i haven't heard an answer to my question how the opinions dealt with the issue of causation the opinions dealt with the issue of causation but you can't put this differently an expert who just asserts an outcome that's not even valuable it's not even admissible to talk about a particular issue as an expert you have to reveal the reasoning process and the data that get you from one position to another so that's why i'm asking how these you're reading physician reports dealt with the issue of causation each of the doctors used a differential idiology stating reviewed medical records proves causation could you explain it to a layperson like me whether a doctor doing different ideology rules in a rules out potential causes of the symptoms that they're see in this case each of the doctors does that a physician expert you intend to call and you didn't do that we did your honor we we filed the reports we said i didn't say filing reports i said you didn't say these are the experts are going to testify and here's a summary of what they're going to testify to we acknowledged we did not say in that disclosure what's required by the rule we believe that there are there is authority that other other courts district courts even within this jurisdiction have looked at written reports and found that to be a sufficient summary judgment well it's it's no secret that it's basic that you have to listen to expert witnesses and summarize or test point and you didn't do that well we thought at the time it was sufficient there is literature about the empirical studies about the facts of the components of this flu spoke as part of his report he also did a complete evaluation and to differentiate any allergy to come up with his opinion on and what did he say about that story what do you think that study of staff wishes he felt that the study while it was not the exact same chemical was sufficient in different chemical i thought ok this is a chemical family of not that persistence chemical involved in this situation we felt that the summaries that were provided by the  there been any animal studies with respect to this chemical were these chemicals now that we're aware of it and i think this gets into the dog or tissue and any any studies at the population level that has people exposed to this have a different probability of certain results than others it's not the issue of the not i'm not that we're aware of ok the we were relying on the medical doctor and his differential idiology to prove cause in other words if i understand that correctly you're just relying on their say so they didn't have any evidence under the current president in this circuit and yet differential idiology is enough to prove causation or at least pretty new we claim to me how that phrase differs from gets my say so well i think the question of the questions you are raising are part of the dark examination differential allergy ruling in ruling out and comes up with their best opinion in other words it's my say so but i'm not explaining is there anything else they are that's what i'm trying to get assuming we treat these as expert opinions even though they weren't so  better that's what i'm trying to figure out all we had at depth point was the doctor's evaluation history taken and his opinion based on what his his area of expertise sho reports on them when we went to summary judgment the only issue before the court was whether or not if the doctors are excluded whether somebody's judgment would be granted the judge excluded that and we believe that the exclusion of these experts by the district court was erroneous because of this report had other options available effect the district court in this case proposed a solution to us at the summary judgment hearing which would have called for the trial being reset for three months discloser do it more full disclosure of the expert testimony give the defendant opportunity to depose the experts and then perform whatever necessary dawber hearings would be needed before the trial and that was certainly discussed at the summary judgment hearing we had no opposition to it and for whatever reason the trial did or the district court judge in this case elected not to instead simply totally excluded the expert witnesses when there were other options available there were other sanctions that would been less severe because obviously in this case the same ship exclusion terminated the case on the merits reached then and there and certainly the trial judge in this case should have done a better analysis in terms of whether it was you know in analyzing the four factors that determines whether the failure to properly disclose the witnesses was justified or hermanus and that is the prelude to surprise admitted that he knew that they would most likely be testifying sexperts in the case well that's why i asked if you ever asked him to testify they would eventually we would have asked him to testify have a salute lee understand that that's one of the reason he did listen is because my guess is you had to ask him to testify but we were even at that we were not even at the point of doing it because the summary judgment came up and we clearly would have called them to tell you can't you hit the point where you had to identify your experts and write a summary of their testimony right correct and you didn't do it we believe that we did with the reports that we filed with the court and served on counsel for defendant and on september one two thousand and fifteen thank you your honor your honor the outcome in this case was not because of any legal error or use of discretion by the district court the cripes fail to comply with the most basic requirement of the rule twenty six they fail to identify any position as an expert on causation even though they knew they needed one and they had ample opportunity to do so we're not talking about some obscure rule of federal civil procedure we're not talking about some overly technical reading of the rules the cases are uniform that the federal rules depan and formal designation of experts separately from fact witnesses and these expert disclosure requirements of rule twenty six are interval part of the overall rules goal of securing the just speedy and inexpensive determination of actions the district court was within its discretion and in fact was really obligated to enforce the rules in this case the court pointed out the supplemental appendix which is the entirety of the appellant's expert disclosure gives no indication whatsoever that anyone other than patricia robinson the warnings expert was being designated as an expert in this case it contains one expert report the exhibits that were attached to the report were designated in the docket as medical records relied on by expert and they were mixed in with other non medical records there is nothing in the document that would suggest to anyone that the medical records were being separately designated as experts and the district courts determination that the crites fail to comply with rule twenty six was supported by the record and is correct i'd like to address some of the questions that of coming forward with that missile evidence to defeat summary judgment they need to show that they had it miscible evidence that shows causation and they failed to do that with respect to the issue about whether there is medical literature that supports their position there are no studies animal or human that have concluded that this chemical causes neurological or psychological injuries like those that have been alleged by mr cripe and the one study that was referenced in the report of dr pike as been discredited in the very materials that were provided by dr robinson and if in the record at page one fifty two the world health organization says that the small sample size possible selection bias for workers involved in in litigation possible con finding factors lack of pertinent matched controls lack of objective exposure data and lack of knowledge on mechanism preclude the credibility of findings this is the world health organization description of that study in the materials provided by ms robinson so your honor closing i would like to echo the words of the district charge there's a point at which you say enough is enough five years multiple extensions and no justification whatsoever for the failure to disclose enough is enough the judgment should be  the only question that was properly before the trial district court was whether or not we presented a genuine issue of material fact we believe we presented that with the medical reports the written opinion orts from plaintiff's treating experts the issue of whether they would be admissible under daughter would have been or should have been reserved for another day at this point we believe we certainly felt that we had submitted the reports properly in rule twenty six  see and even if it had not been properly submitted that there was justifiable reason for that that the defendant had the reports knew that they were treating doctors knew that they would most likely be called the sexperts and the district court chose the most extreme sanction available excluding them knowing that that it would completely terminate mr cripps case we would ask the court reverse the decision of the court remanded back to the district court for further proceedings thank you thank you