Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00109/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00109-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT KURT SCHERER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOME DEPOT U.S.A, INC.; KRAUSE, 

INC., and DOES 1-100, 

Defendants. /

No. Civ.S-04-109 DFL GGH 

O R D E R 

After extensive briefing and oral argument, the court makes 

the following rulings on the parties’ motions in limine: 

Krause’s motions

Krause’s motion no. 1: DENIED. Krause has failed to raise 

a sufficient issue as to whether the proposed testimony of 

Scherer’s expert, Joseph D. Balser, Ph.D., is scientifically 

flawed or unreliable under F. R. Evid. 702. 

Krause’s motion no. 2: GRANTED as to testing performed 

after December 9, 2005. The court’s order of November 21, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 286 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 8
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

states that “the parties must complete all testing and deliver 

initial expert reports on or before December 7, 2005.” The 

parties subsequently agreed to extend the December 7 deadline 

until December 9, 2005. Nevertheless, Dr. Balser performed 

additional testing well after that date. Because this testing 

was done in violation of the court’s order, Dr. Balser may not 

refer to, describe, or state any opinion based on testing he 

performed after December 9, 2005. 

Krause’s motion no. 3: DENIED. Krause has failed to 

demonstrate that loading the ladder makes any relevant 

difference to the data Dr. Balser collected through this test or 

the purpose of the test. 

Krause’s motion no. 4: DENIED. The purpose of this test is 

to demonstrate that a release under load leaves different marks 

from an unloaded release. Krause has failed to show that the 

ladder was insufficiently loaded to permit a valid test. 

Krause’s motion no. 5: GRANTED. See motion no. 2. 

Krause’s motion no. 6: GRANTED. See motion no. 2. 

Krause’s motion no. 7: GRANTED. See motion no. 2. 

Krause’s motion no. 8: GRANTED. See motion no. 2. 

Krause’s motion no. 9: GRANTED. It is apparent from 

watching the video that the precise setup of the ladder may have 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 286 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 8
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a significant effect on its ability to release with a kick. In 

particular, the ladder in the video is set up in an “A” 

configuration with a precise amount of play in the top joint, 

whereas the injury ladder was in a straight, fully extended 

configuration when the accident occurred. It is apparent from 

the video that unless there is play in the top joint, the 

release mechanism cannot be triggered by a kick. Absent a 

further proffer that the behavior of the ladder depicted in the 

video is relevant to the issues in this case, the video and any 

evidence of the test it depicts are excluded. It is possible 

that the video could become relevant for impeachment or 

rebuttal, in which case plaintiff should ask the court for 

reconsideration on this basis. 

Krause’s motion no. 10: GRANTED (subject to reconsideration 

if Krause makes an issue of the timeliness of notice). 

Krause’s motion no. 11: GRANTED. Evidence of the recall 

and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigation are 

irrelevant to any remaining claim in this lawsuit. 

Krause’s motion no. 12: GRANTED. 

Krause’s motion no. 13: GRANTED. The Consumer Product 

Safety Commission draft report of June 23, 1998 is irrelevant to 

any claim in this lawsuit. It is also potentially confusing and 

unfairly prejudicial under F. R. Evid. 403, as it focuses on the 

coating covering bolts not included in the injury ladder. 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 286 Filed 10/23/06 Page 3 of 8
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Krause’s motion no. 14: Ruling deferred subject to 

Scherer’s proffer of the specific identity and circumstances of 

accidents involving substantially similar failures. If Scherer 

seeks to offer evidence of accidents not involving substantially 

similar failures, he must proffer a declaration explaining their 

relevance to a specific issue in the case. Scherer’s proffer 

must be filed by close of business on Tuesday, October 24, 2006. 

Krause’s opposition must be filed by close of business on 

Thursday, October 26, 2006. 

Home Depot’s motions

Home Depot’s motion no. 1: Ruling deferred subject to 

Scherer’s proffer that Dr. Darnell will testify that (1) the 

progression of the accident rate for Krause ladders suggests a 

design defect in the injury ladder; (2) the injury ladder came 

with inadequate warnings; and (3) Scherer’s fall and injuries 

are consistent with hinge collapse but not slide-out. Scherer 

must identify where in Dr. Darnell’s expert report each of these 

opinions was disclosed, as well as precisely what experience or 

training qualifies Dr. Darnell to offer each opinion. Scherer’s 

proffer must be filed by close of business on Tuesday, October 

24, 2006. Krause’s opposition must be filed by close of 

business on Thursday, October 26, 2006. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 2: GRANTED. Scherer seeks to 

introduce evidence that Home Depot was negligent in its handling 

and selling of Krause ladders. This “negligent retailing” claim 

was not identified in the parties’ joint pre-trial conference 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 286 Filed 10/23/06 Page 4 of 8
5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

statement or the court’s pre-trial conference order. Nor was it 

identified as a disputed issue of fact. Therefore, Scherer may 

not pursue a negligent retailing claim at trial. Accordingly, 

evidence of Home Depot’s actions before agreeing to sell Krause 

ladders is irrelevant. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 3: GRANTED. The evidence is 

irrelevant. See Home Depot’s motion no. 2. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 4: GRANTED. The evidence is 

irrelevant. See Home Depot’s motion no. 2. It is also unfairly 

prejudicial and must be excluded under F. R. Evid. 403. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 5: GRANTED. The evidence is 

irrelevant. See Home Depot’s motion no. 2. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 6: GRANTED. The evidence is 

irrelevant. See Home Depot’s motion no. 2. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 7: GRANTED. The evidence is 

irrelevant. See Home Depot’s motion no. 2. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 8: GRANTED. The evidence is 

irrelevant. See Home Depot’s motion no. 2. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 9: GRANTED with respect to evidence 

of the recall, but DENIED to the extent the motion would prevent 

Scherer from introducing evidence that the injury ladder came 

with inadequate warning. 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 286 Filed 10/23/06 Page 5 of 8
6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Home Depot’s motion no. 10: GRANTED. Whether Home Depot 

was on notice of customer injuries is irrelevant to any 

remaining claim in this lawsuit. However, the fact that there 

may have been substantially similar accidents may be relevant to 

Scherer’s failure to warn claim. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 11: GRANTED. The evidence is 

irrelevant. See Home Depot’s motion no. 2. The evidence is 

also unfairly prejudicial and must be excluded under F. R. Evid. 

403. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 12: GRANTED. The evidence is 

irrelevant. See Home Depot’s motion no. 2. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 13: DENIED. This is not a motion 

in limine but a motion for judgment as a matter of law. As 

such, it must be brought at the appropriate time. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 14: GRANTED. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 15: DENIED. See Home Depot’s 

motion no. 13. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 16: GRANTED. The evidence is 

irrelevant. See Home Depot’s motion no. 2. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 17: DENIED. Evidence of subsequent 

remedial measures taken by a non-defendant is admissible. Pau 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 286 Filed 10/23/06 Page 6 of 8
7 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

v. Yosemite Park and Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 887-88 (9th Cir. 

1991). Climbtek is not a defendant in this case. Moreover, 

defense counsel conceded at oral argument that Climbtek is not 

Krause’s successor in interest and has not assumed Krause’s 

liabilities. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 18: Ruling deferred subject to 

Scherer’s proffer of Bunker and Wood’s proposed testimony and 

its relevance to any remaining claim in this lawsuit. Scherer’s 

proffer must be filed by close of business on Tuesday, October 

24, 2006. Krause’s opposition must be filed by close of 

business on Thursday, October 26, 2006. 

Home Depot’s motion no. 19: DENIED. The court is not 

persuaded that the trial should be bifurcated because of the 

nature of the plaintiff’s injuries. Moreover, this matter 

should have been raised by the defendants at the time of the 

pre-trial conference. To require plaintiff to re-schedule his 

witnesses at this late date would be burdensome. 

Scherer’s motions

Scherer’s motion to exclude Dr. Quan’s documentary 

evidence: DENIED. Scherer has presented no coherent theory as 

to why this testimony should be excluded. He has not 

demonstrated that Dr. Quan’s analysis of the accident is 

scientifically unsound or inadmissible under F. R. Evid. 702. 

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 286 Filed 10/23/06 Page 7 of 8
8 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Scherer’s motion to exclude expert witness testimony: 

DENIED as to Dr. Quan and Raymond Merala; GRANTED as to Timothy 

Sells, who did not submit an expert report as required by Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). The court understands that Scherer does 

not intend to call Dr. Davis, his new treating physician. 

Scherer is advised that if he decides to call Dr. Davis, he must 

comply with the terms of the pretrial order. He is further 

advised that should he seek to call Dr. Davis, the court may 

reconsider its decision not to bifurcate the trial so that 

defendants may have an opportunity to take Dr. Davis’ deposition 

prior to his testimony. 

Scherer’s motion to exclude unproduced documents: DENIED. 

Scherer may renew this motion with respect to specific 

documents, if appropriate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 10/23/2006

______________________________ 

DAVID F. LEVI 

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00109-DFL-GGH Document 286 Filed 10/23/06 Page 8 of 8