DLD-180 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1180

___________ WI L L I AM HAR RI S ON AL S T ON, A p p e llan t

v. DEB RA FORSYTH ; M AR TY SA PKO ; STEP HEN HO USELER; J AM ES P ERRO TTI

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 1: 05- cv- 00168- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

____________________________________ S u b m itted f

o r P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir dC ir c u it L .A .R . 2 7 .4 a n dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 A pr i l 29, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed M ay13, 2010 )

_________ OP INI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antW i l l i am H arr i s on A l s t on s eeks r evi ew of an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ent er ed on J anuary6, 2010, g ran ti n g su m m aryjud g m en t t o A p p ell ee s D eb ra F o rsyth, M artyS ap k o , S teph en H o u seler,a n dJa m e s P e rro tti (c o llec tiv e ly , “A p p e llee s” ). F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill s um m ar i l yvaca t e the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or derand r emand the matt erforfurtherpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. I . B ackgr ound A l s t on, a fe der alpr i s onerform er l yi ncar cer at ed atthe Feder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atM cK ean ( “FC I - M cK ean” ) , fi l ed a pr o s e ci vi l r i ght s compl ai nti n M ay2005, pur s uantt o B i vens v. Si x U nknow n A gent s of Fed. B ur eau of N ar cot i cs , 403 U . S. 388 (19 7 1 ). A lst o n n am ed as d ef en d an ts th e f

o u r A p p ell ee s, all fe d era l of ficials w h o w ere e m p lo y e da t F C I- M c K e a n d u ri n g A ls to n ’s te n u re th e re . In th e c o m p lai n t, A lst o n all eg ed h e h ad b ee n assig n ed to w o rk a t FC I-M cK ea n ’s U N I C O R fac t oryfr om M ar ch 2001 thr ough M ar ch 2002. A ccor di ng t o A l s t on, dur i ng that w o rka ss ig n m e n t, he w a s e x p o se dto h ig h lev e ls o f silica d u st, ac a rc in o g e n . H e a lleg e d ly i nqui r ed aboutthe s afe tyof hi s expos ur e t o the s i l i ca dus tand w as as s ur ed he w as re c e iv in g a d e q u a te p ro tec tio n . In M a rc h 2 0 0 2 , A lsto n w a s d iag n o se dw ith a sp o t o n h is lu n g , a n dh e w a s tr a n s f e rr e dto a d if

f e re n t f a c ility s h o rt ly th e re a f

te r. A l s t on cl ai m s he has s i nce s uffe r ed addi t i onal adver s e hea l th eff ect s and attr i but es th e s e p r o b l e ms t o s i l i c a d u s te x p o s u r e . Ba s e du p o n th e s e a l l e g a t i o n s , Al s t o n c l a i ms A ppel l ees vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underthe Fi fth and Ei ghth A m endment s of the U ni t ed St at es C on st i tuti on . H e seeks t o recov er m on et arydam ages. In S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 7 , A p p e llee s m o v e dto d ism iss A lsto n ’s c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) on tw o gr ounds : ( 1) thatthe appl i cabl e tw o- y ears t atut e ofSee H i l l v. L aM anna, 1: 03- cv- 00323 ( W . D . Pa. ) ; K el l yv. L aM anna, 1: 03- cv- 1 00368 ( W . D . Pa. ) ; Si gger s v. L aM anna, 1: 03- cv- 00355 ( W . D . Pa. ) ; W ar d v. L aM anna, 1: 04- cv- 0011 ( W . D . Pa. ) ; H i l l v. L aM anna, 1: 05- cv- 00160 ( W . D . Pa. ) ( col l ect i vel y , the “W ard sil ica d u st case s”). I n thes e c ase s, w h ich w ere co n so li d ated , the D istri ct C o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to th e p riso n o f f icia l d e f e n d a n ts o n th e p lain tiff s’ E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im s . T he D i stri ctC ou rtno t ed itw as unclearw hetherA l st on had been provided acce ss 2 t o the di s coverym at er i al s fr om the W ar d s i l i ca dus tcas es and, i f s o, w hetherhe had be en p e rm i tt e dt o s u p p l e m e n tth a td i s c o v e ry. l i m i t at i ons bar s hi s cl ai m s ; and ( 2) thatadver s e dec i s i ons i s s ued i n s ever al s i m i l ars i l i ca dus tcas es br oughtbyotherFC I - M cK ean pr i s oner s for ecl os e hi s cl ai m s . A l s t on oppos ed 1 th e m o tio n . O n J une 5, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed the mot i on t o di s m i s s . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rtco n clud ed that A lst o n ’s all eg ati o n s d id n o t “co n clus ivelyestab li sh that P lai n ti ff’s caus e of a ct i on acc rued out s i de of the appl i cabl e tw o- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od. ” The D i stri ctC ou rtal so determ i ned that A l st on w as not pr ecl ud ed from l i t i gati ng his cl ai m s, b e c a u se h e h a dn o t b e e n a p a rtyto th e W a rd silica d u st c a se s a n dh a dn o t y e t h a da “ f u ll and fa i r ” opportuni tyt o l i t i gat e hi s cl ai m s . M or eover , thos e ca s es w er e dec i ded af t er ext ens i ve di s covery , w hi l e no di s coveryhad y ett aken pl ace i n A l s t on’ s cas e. 2 A l s t on’ s act i on pr ocee ded. A m ong otherthi ngs , on M ar ch 30, 2009, A l s t on fi l ed a “no t i ce t o co m pel the taki ng of d epo si t i on s, ” request i ng that s even pri son o ffi ci al s, i ncl udi ng A ppel l ees , be made avai l abl e fordepos i t i ons . T he “not i ce” al s o s t at ed that A l s t on had s erved r eques t s forthe pr oduct i on of document s and butr ece i ved a mi ni m alIn h is “n o ti ce , ” A lst o n ac k n o w ledg ed rec eipt o f “ d isco v erym aterial s tha t w ere 3 f o rw a rd e db y ” A p p e llee s’ c o u n se l. T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t re f lec t w h e th e r th e m a ter ials inclu d ed so m e o r all o f th e d isco v erythat h ad b ee n p rov ided to the p lai n ti ff s in the W ard si l i ca du stcases. W e agr eed that , vi ew i ng thei revi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o them, the 4 p lai n ti ff s in tho se c ase s fa il ed to es tablish tha t th e n am ed p ri so n o ff ici als w ere d e lib e ra telyin d if

f e re n t to th e risk s a ss o c iate dw ith silica d u st. re s p o n s e . T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t r e f le c t a n yre s p o n s e to A ls to n ’s s u b m is s io n . 3 O n A pr i l 6, 2009, the M agi s tr at e Judge hel d a s t atus confe r ence and s chedul ed the fi l i ng of di s pos i t i ve mot i ons “r egar di ng [the] t i m el i nes s i s s ue. ” O n M ay13, 2009, A ppel l ees m oved fors um m aryj udgm ents ol el yon s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons gr ounds . A l s t on oppos ed the mot i on. W hi l e the s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on w as pendi ng, w e af fi rm ed the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s aw ard of sum m aryj ud gm ent t o the pri son o ffi ci al s i n the W ard si l i ca du st c a se s. W a rd v . L a M a n n a , 3 3 4 F . A p p ’x 4 8 7 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 9 ). A p p e llee s th e n f iled a re p ly 4 b ri ef in su p p o rto f su m m aryjud g m en t, arg u ing that W ard sh o u ld d ispo se o f A lst o n ’s c la im s . A ls to n d id n o t f ile a s u r- re p ly. T h e Ma g i s tr a t e J u d g e i s s u e da R e p o rta n dR e c o m m e n d a t i o n ( “ R &R ” ) . T h e R &R r ecomm ended de ny i ng s um m aryj udgm enton s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons gr ounds , becaus e the re c o rd re f

lec ted a “ w e a lth o f

c o n f lictin g e v id e n c e ” c o n c e rn in g w h e n A lsto n h a d , o r sh o u ld hav e had , suffici ent aw areness of the rel evan tfact s t o recog nize hi s cause of ac t i on against A ppel l ees . H ow ever , the R & R r ecomm ended gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o A ppel l ees bas ed upon W ar d, 334 F. A pp’ x at491- 92. T he M agi s tr at e Judge conc l uded, “[n] ow that P lain tiff h a s h a da f

u ll an df a ir o p p o rtu n ityto g a th e r a n dp re se n t ev id e n c e in su p p o rt o f h isc laim s, it is c lea r th a t P lain tiff is u n ab le to p re se n t an yth in g n e w f o r th is C o u rt to cons i der . ” Al s t o n f i l e do b j e c t i o n s a n dAp p e l l e e s r e s p o n d e dt o Al s t o n ’ s o b j e c t i o n s . On J anuary6, 2010, the D i s tr i ctC ourti s s ued a s hortor deradopt i ng the R & R as i t s opi ni on a n dg ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to A p p e lle e s . A l s t on fi l ed a t i m el ypr o s e not i ce of appea l . A ppel l ees have f i l ed a mot i on for s um m aryact i on. A l s t on has notfi l ed a r es pons e. II. A n a ly sis W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm entor der . See Pel or o v. U ni t ed St at es , 488 F. 3d 163, 173 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . W e vi ew the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o A l s t on and dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n hi s favor . E as tm an K odak C o. v. I m age Techni cal Servs . , I nc. , 504 U . S. 451, 456 ( 1992) . W e w i l l uphol d the dec i s i on i f A ppel l ees e sta b lish e dth e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial f a c t an dth e ya re e n tit led to ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law . S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). W e m a ytak e su m m a rya c tio n if the appe al pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. A. A s um m aryj udgm entm ovantm us tpr ovi de the nonmovi ng partyw i th not i ce and a r eas onabl e opportuni tyt o r es pond. See gene r al l y , Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ; C el ot ex C orp. v. C atrett , 47 7 U . S . 31 7, 32 6 (198 6) ( “[D ]i stri ctcou rt s ar e w i delyackn ow l edg ed to possess the pow ert o ent ers um m aryj udgm ent s . . . s o l ong as the l os i ng partyw as on not i ce thatA l though A l s t on’ s obj ect i ons t o the R & R att empt ed t o di s t i ngui s h hi s cas e fr om 5 W a rd , w e d o n o t co n sid e r th e o b jec tio n s to b e a n a d e q u a te s u b stitu te f o r th e o p p o rtu n ity t o di r ect l yr es pond t o A ppel l ees ’ s um m aryj udgm entcl ai m . A m ong otherthi ngs , A l s t on h a da mo r e l i mi t e dt i me t o p r e p a r e a n df i l e o b j e c t i o n s t o th e R&R. S e e 2 8 U. S . C. § 6 3 6 (b )(1 ) (a p a rtym u st f ile o b jec tio n s to a M a g istra te J u d g e ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n s w ith in s he had t o come forw ar d w i th al l of herevi dence . ”) . T her e i s caus e forconce rn w her e a m ovantpr es ent s new ar gum ent s orevi dence forthe fi r s tt i m e i n a s um m aryj udgm ent re p lyb rie f

, p a rticu lar lyif

th e D istric t C o u rt in ten d s to re lyu p o n th a t n e w in f o rm a tio n in gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o the movant . See, e. g. , B eai r d v. Seagat e Tech. , I nc. , 145 F. 3d 1159, 1164 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( “[W ] hen a movi ng partyadvanc es i n a r epl ynew re a so n s a n de v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f its m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, th e n o n m o v in g p a rty s houl d be gr ant ed an opportuni tyt o r es pond. ”) ; Pr ovenz v. M i l l er , 102 F. 3d 1478, 1483 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( a D i s tr i ctC ourts houl d notcons i dernew evi dence r ai s ed i n the r epl yt o a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t w ith o u t g iv in g th e n o n m o v in g p a rtya n o p p o rtu n ityto resp o n d ); C ia. P etrolera C aribe , Inc . v . A rco C aribb ea n , Inc . , 7 5 4 F . 2 d4 0 4 , 4 1 0 (1st C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) (“ [ T ]h e n o n m o v in g p a rty. . . sh o u ldh a v e h a da n o p p o rtu n ityto e x a m in e a n dre p ly to th e m o v in g p a rty ’s p ap e rs b e f o re th e c o u rtc o n s id e re dth e m in its d e c is io n p ro c e s s .” ). H ere , the D istri ct C o u rtac ce p ted A p p ell ee s’ arg u m en t th at W ard , 3 3 4 F . A p p ’x 4 9 1 - 9 2 , i s d i s p o s i t i v e o f Al s t o n ’ s c l a i ms . Ap p e l l e e s r a i s e dth i s a r g u me n tf o rth e f i r s tt i me i n a r epl ybr i ef. N ei therthe Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e northe D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s l ocal ru l e s p e rmi tt e dAl s t o n t o f i l e a s u r - r e p l y . S e e F e d . R. Ci v . P . 5 6 ( c ) ( 1 ) ; W . D. P a . L. Ci v . R. 56. A ccor di ngl y , A l s t on had no meani ngful opportuni tyt o pr es entar gum ent s orevi dence i n oppos i t i on t o the dec i s i ve i s s ue. 514 day s ) ; Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ( 1) ( B ) ( a partyoppos i ng s um m aryj udgm entm us tr es pond

w ith in 2 1 d a y s). A lsto n d idn o t ap p e n dto th e o b jec tio n s a n ya f

f id a v its o r o th e r c o g n iza b le e v id e n c e a n dh e d idn o t sp e c if yth e e x iste n c e o f

a g e n u in e iss u e o f

m a ter ial f

a c t to a v o id s um m aryj udgm ent , as he w oul d be expe ct ed t o do i n a s um m aryj udgm entr es pons e. F or i nst ance, the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not address the g eneral prohibi t i on against 6 appl y i ng col l at er al es t oppel t o thos e w ho w er e notpart i es t o the pr i orl i t i gat i on, s ee N ati o n w ide M u t. F ir e In s. C o . v . G eo rge V . H am il ton , Inc . , 5 7 1 F . 3 d2 9 9 , 3 1 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), o r a b a s is f

o r a p p lyin g a n e x c e p tio n to th a t ru le . A ccor di ng t o A ppel l ees , “[i ] f A l s t on had anyother‘ new ’ evi dence t o pr es entat s um m aryj udgm entt o di s t i ngui s h hi s cas e fr om – and es cape the ef fec tof – W ar d, i tw as i ncumbentupon hi m t o pr es enti t . ” A ppel l ees over l ook thatA l s t on w as notaff or ded the opportuni tyt o do s o. Fundam ent al fai rnes s demands thatA l s t on s houl d have ha d not i ce and a meani ngful opportuni tyt o r es pond pr i ort o the aw ar d of s um m aryj udgm enton g ro u n d s ra is e df

o r th e f ir s t tim e in A p p e lle e s ’ r e p ly b ri e f. T o the ext entA l s t on w i s hes t o pr es entar gum ent s and evi dence i n oppos i t i on t o the decis i ve sum m aryj ud gm ent i ssue, the D i stri ctC ou rtshou l d co nsi der them i n the fi rs t i ns t ance . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or derand r emand thi s m att er for further proceedings. B. B ecaus e w e have det erm i ned thatr emand i s appr opr i at e, w e nee d notr eac h the m e rits o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t d e c isio n . H o w e v e r, w e n o te th a t, w h ile it appear s thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourti m pl i ci t l yappl i ed the pr i nci pl e of de fens i ve col l at er al e sto p p e l, th e D istric t C o u rt d idn o t d isc u ss p re c lu sio n p rin c ip les o r se t f o rth its ra tio n a le f o r ap p ly in g th e m . T h e D istric t C o u rt d idn o t d isc u ss h o w A lsto n ’s e v id e n c e is 6“s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar , i f noti dent i cal ” t o the evi dence i n W ar d, and, w hi l e the D i s tr i ct

C o u rt sta ted th a t A lsto n h a da “ f u ll an df a ir o p p o rtu n ityto g a th e r a n dp re se n t ev id e n c e in su p p o rt o f

h is c laim s,” th e re c o rd d o e s n o t re f lec t su c h a n o p p o rtu n ityo r w h e th e r a n d to w h a t e x te n t A ls to n h a da c c e s s to d is c o v e ry. W e e x p re ss n o o p in io n w h e th e r su m m a ryju d g m e n t m a yo r m a yn o t b e ap p ro p ria te in th e se p ro c e e d in g s. U p o n re m a n d , w e a re c o n f id e n t th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w illf u lf illits obl i gat i on t o conducta car efulj udi ci al i nqui rypr i ort o appl y i ng pr eclus i on pr i nci pl es , s ee Purt erv. H eckl er , 771 F. 2d 682, 690 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( ci t i ng B r ow n v. Fel s en, 442 U . S. 127, 1 3 2 (1 9 7 9 )), a n dw illp ro v id e a c lea r sta tem e n t o f th e ra tio n a le u n d e rly in g its d e c isio n , to fac i l i t at e meani ngful appel l at e r evi ew of i t s conclus i ons . See Forbes v. T w p. of Low er M er i on, 313 F. 3d 144, 148 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; V adi no v. A . V al eyE ng’ r s , 903 F. 2d 253, 259 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). I I I . C oncl us i on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm ent or derand r emand the matt erforfurtherpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. See 3d C ir. L .A .R . 2 7 .4 ; I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . A p p e llee s’ m o tio n f o r su m m a rya c tio n in th e ir f a v o r is d e n ie d .