FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J ANUARY 31, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 00 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 6 :0 6- cv -0 16 71 -J A-DAB

AMY SHIRLEY OLIVER,
as Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Ant ho ny Carl Ol iv er, Sr., Dece as ed , for an d o n be ha lf o f th e su rv iv or s o f th e Est at e o f Ant ho ny Carl Oli ve r, Sr.,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt ,

ve rs us ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, a p ol it ic al su bd iv is io n o f th e St at e o f Fl or id a, et al.,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s,
LORI FIORI NO, in th e o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Orla nd o P ol ic e Dep art m en t Offi cer, DAVID BURK, in th e o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Orla nd o P ol ic e Dep art m en t Offi ce, TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, CITY OF ORLANDO,a p ol it ic al su bd iv is io n o f th e St at e o f Fl or id a,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 31 , 20 12 )
Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:

Am y Sh irl ey Oli ve r (“ Oli v e r ” ) , as pe rs on al rep res en ta ti ve of th e es ta te of

Ant ho ny Carl Oli v er, Sr., ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin al or de r gr an ti ng

su m m ary jud gm en t in fa v o r o f Offi cer Lori Fi or in o, Offi cer Dav id Bu rk , Tase r
In te rn at io na l, In c., an d Ci ty of Orla nd o (co ll ect iv el y , “ th e Defen da nt s” ), in Oli ve r’s
ci vi l rig ht s act io n. The fir st ti m e th e cas e was be fo re us on ap pe al , Offi cers Bu rk an d

Fi or in o to ok an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al of th e di st ric t co ur t ’s d e ci si on de nyin g th ei r

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y m ot io ns fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, an d we affi rm ed th e tri al co ur t’s

or de r. Oli ve r v. Fi or in o, 58 6 F.3 d 89 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). The cas e was th en rem an de d

to th e tri al co ur t fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs

. In th is ap pe al , Oli ve r arg ue s th at th e di st ric t

2co ur t vi ol at ed th e la w of th e cas e do ct rin e by gr an ti ng th e Defen da nt s’ Dau be rt an d 1

su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io ns . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of sum m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g al l

ev id en ce an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fa v or of th e no n- m ov in g pa rty.
Sh iv er v. Ch ert of

f, 54 9 F.3 d 13 42 , 13 43 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). Und er Ru le 56 , su m m ary jud gm en t is pr op er if th e m ov an t sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu in e is su e as t o a ny

m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. Fed .R.Ci v.P

. 56 (a). We revi ew a tri al co ur t’s deci si on to ex cl ud e an ex pe rt’s tes ti m on y pu rs ua nt

to Dau be rt fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Kil pa tri ck v. Breg , I n c

. , 6 1 3 F.3 d 13 29 , 13 34 ( 1 1 t h Ci r. 20 10 ). “ W e rev ie w d e no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e la w o f
th e cas e do ct rin e.” Alp ha m ed , In c. v. B. Brau n Med ., In c., 36 7 F.3 d 12 80 , 12 85 (1 1t h
Ci r.20 04 ).
The rel ev an t fa ct s an d p ro ced ur al hi st or y of t he cas e are th es e. Oli ve r’s cas e

aro se fro m th e de at h of he r so n, Ant ho ny Oli ve r, who ha d di ed aft er Offi cers Fi or in o

an d Bu rk sh oc ke d hi m wit h a Tase r gu n, or Tase r Elec tro ni c Co nt ro l Dev ic e (“ Tase r ECD”). Oli ve r al le ge d th at th e of fic ers us ed ex ces si ve an d un reas on ab le f o r c e in
vi ol at io n of Ant ho ny Oli ve r’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s, an d al le ge d va rio us act io ns
in to rt ag ai ns t Tase r. Pri or to th e fir st ap pe al to t h i s C o u r t , Ta se r ha d fil ed in th e

Daube rt v. Merr ell Dow Pharma ceutica ls, I nc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 1
3di st ric t co ur t a su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n an d a Dau be rt m ot io n to ex cl ud e Oli ve r’s

m ed ic al cau sa ti on ex pe rt , D r

. G l e nn Ru dn er. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Tase r’s

Dau be rt m ot io n, as well as th e su mm a ry jud gm en t m ot io n ba se d on qu al ifi ed

im m un it y fil ed by de fen da n t s F i o r i n o , Bu rk an d th e Ci ty of Orla nd o. The of fic ers
th en ap pe al ed th e or de r de nyin g th ei r su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n req ue st in g qu al ifi ed

im m un it y , and we affi rm ed

. On rem an d, a ne w jud ge was as s i g n e d to th e cas e. The reaf te r, Tase r fil ed a

m ot io n fo r le av e to su pp le m e nt ex pe rt wit ne ss rep or ts , no ti ng th e ne w sc ie nt ifi c

te st in g reg ard in g th e Tase r ECD th at ha d ta ke n pl ace du rin g th e ti m e th at th e cas e ha d
be en on ap pe al , an d req ue st in g th at th e res pe ct iv e p a r t ie s’ ex pe rts be al lo wed to

su pp le m en t th ei r rep or ts an d op in io ns to ta ke th at sc ie nt ifi c kn owl ed ge in to acco un t.

In res po ns e, Oli ve r’s co un se l ag reed wit h Tase r’s req ue st , an d fu rth er req ue st ed th at
Oli ve r a l s o be al lo wed to su pp le m en t he r ex pe rt wit ne ss rep or ts an d, if ne ces sa ry ,
ret ai n ad di ti on al ex pe rts

. On May 2 7 , 2 0 1 0 , th e tri al co ur t gr an te d bo th pa rti es ’

req ue st s. Pu rs ua nt to th e co ur t’s or de r, a ne w cas e m an ag em en t an d sc he du li ng or de r

was en te red se tt in g fo rth va rio us de ad li ne s fo r th e di sc lo su r e of ex pe rt wit ne ss

rep or ts

. In acco rd an ce wit h th e se co nd am en de d cas e m an ag em en t a n d sc he du li ng

o r d e r , Tase r su pp le m en te d th e rep or ts of nu m ero us ex pe rts refl ect in g th e la te st

4sc ie nt ifi c res earc h co nc ern in g th e effe ct of th e Tase r ECD on t h e hu m an bo dy.

Bas ed on th es e rep or ts , th e Defen da nt s fil ed a ren ewed m ot io n to ex cl ud e Dr. Ru dn er,

an d al so fil ed ren ewed m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e is su e of cau sa ti on

. The pl ai nt iff di d no t su pp le m en t th e r e p o r t o f he r cau sa ti on ex pe rt, Dr. Ru dn er, no r di d
sh e ret ai n an y ne w ex pe rts

. On May 31 , 20 11 , th e co ur t en te red an or de r gr an ti ng al l

m ot io ns to ex cl ud e Dr. Ru dn er an d al l pe nd in g m ot io ns f o r s u mm ary jud gm en t. Sp eci fic al ly, it he ld th at “ th e m et ho do lo gy us ed by Dr. Ru dn er to reac h hi s op in io ns
is co nc lu so ry an d un rel ia bl e, an d th eref or e, hi s op in io n tes ti m on y wil l be excl ud ed

. Fu rth erm or e, wit ho ut Dr. Ru dn er’s te st im on y , Pl ai nt iff ha s fai l e d to pr es en t an y

ev id en ce of cau sa ti on , an d Defen da nt s’ m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t co ns eq ue nt ly

m us t b e g ran te d.” Thi s t im el y ap pe al fol lo ws.

“ Und er th e la w of th e cas e do ct rin e , b o th th e di st ric t co ur t an d th e ap pe ll at e

co ur t are ge ne ral ly bo un d by a pr io r ap pe ll at e de ci si on of th e sa m e cas e. The la w of
th e cas e do ct rin e, ho wev er, ba rs co ns id erat io n of on ly th o s e l e g a l is su es th at were

act ua ll y , or by ne ces sa ry im pl ic at io n, de ci de d in th e fo rm er pr oc eed in g.” Ja ck so n v.
St at e of Alab am a S t a t e Te n u re Co m ’n, 40 5 F.3 d 12 76 , 12 83 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . Never th el es s, b ecau se th e “ la w of th e cas e ap pl ie s o nl y

wher e
th ere ha s be en a fin al jud gm en t[,] a co ur t’s pr ev io us ru li ng s m ay be reco ns id ered as
lo ng as th e cas e rem ai ns wit hi n th e ju r i s d i ct io n of th e di st ric t co ur t.” Vin ti ll a v.

5Uni te d Stat es , 93 1 F.2 d 14 44 , 14 47 (1 1t h Cir. 19 91 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Mo rev er,

th ere are ex cep ti on s to th e la w of th e cas e do ct rin e, na m el y , whe re th e de fen da nt can
sh ow ei th er (1 ) ne w ev id en ce; (2 ) an in te rv en in g ch an g e i n t h e l a w th at di ct at es a
di ffer en t res ul t; or (3 ) th at th e pr io r de ci si on was cl earl y erro ne ou s an d wou ld res ul t
in m an ife st in

jus ti ce. Pi am

bi no v. Ba il ey , 75 7 F .2d 11 12 , 11 20 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ).

Ru le 70 2 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e al lo ws an ex pe rt to te st ify in a cas e,

pr ov id ed th at “ sc ie nt ifi c, te ch ni cal , or ot he r sp eci al iz ed kn owl e d g e ” wil l as si st th e
tri er of fact

. Fed

. R. Evi d. 70 2. Add it io na ll y , th e ex pe rt m us t be q u a l i f

i e d by

“ kn owl ed ge , sk il l, exp eri en ce, trai ni ng , or ed uc at io n” an d m ay te st ify to an op in io n
if (1 ) “ th e te st im on y is ba se d on su ffi ci en t fact s or da ta ,” (2 ) “ th e te st im on y i s th e

pr od uc t of rel ia bl e pr in ci pl es an d m et ho ds ,” an d (3 ) th e wit ne ss “ ha s rel ia bl y ap pl ie d
th e p rin ci pl es an d m et ho ds to th e fac ts of t he cas e.” Id

. In Dau be rt, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at th ro ug h Rule 702, co ur ts pe rfo rm

a “ ga te ke ep in g” fu nc ti on -- sp eci fic al ly, th ey de te rm in e whe th er th e pr of fere d ex pe rt

t e s t im on y is rel ia bl e an d rel ev an t. Dau be rt, 50 9 U.S. at 58 9 n.7 , 59 0- 91

. Thu s, in

or de r fo r ex pe rt t es ti m on y to be ad m is si bl e, a d is tri ct co ur t m us t d et erm in e th at (1 ) th e ex pe rt is qu al ifi ed to te st ify co m pe te nt ly reg ard in g th e m at te rs he in te nd s to ad dr es s; (2 ) th e m et ho do lo gy by whi ch th e ex pe rt reac he s hi s co nc lu si on s is su ffi ci en tl y rel ia bl e as de te rm in ed by th e so rt of in qu iry
m an da te d in Dau be rt; an d (3 ) th e te st im on y as si st s th e tr ie r of fact ,

6th ro ug h th e ap pl ic at io n of sc ie nt ifi c, te ch ni cal , or sp eci al iz ed ex pe rti se ,

to un de rs ta nd th e ev id en ce o r to de te rm in e a fac t i n i ss ue

. Uni te d S ta te s v . Frazi er, 3 87 F.3 d 12 44 , 12 60 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. As an in it ia l m at te r, th e la w of th e cas e do ct rin e do es no t ap pl y he re b ecau se
th e fir st ap pe al in th is cas e di d no t ad dr es s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or ig in al Dau be rt ru li ng

. Rat he r, th e on ly is su es res ol ve d an d co ns id ered du rin g th e in it ia l ap pe al rel at ed to

qu al i f i e d im m un it y de fen se s as se rte d by Fi or in o an d Bu rk in th ei r m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t. See Oli ve r, 58 6 F.3 d at 90 4 (“ Th e o n l y is su e be fo re us is
whe th er Offi cers Fio rin o a nd Bu rk are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t cl ai m th at t h ey us ed ex ces si ve an d un reas on ab le fo rce by rep eat ed ly

ta se rin g Oliv er.”)

. In so do in g, we “ res ol ve [d ] al l iss ue s of m at eri al fact in fav or of
th e pl ai nt iff

,” id

. at 9 01 , an d as rel ev an t he re, si m pl y reci te d fro m th e reco rd th at

ex is te d at th e ti m e th at Dr. Ru dn er’s ex pe rt rep or t ha d op in ed “ to a reas on ab le de gr ee

o f med i c al cert ai nt y ” ab ou t th e cau se of Oli ve r’s de at h. Id

. at 90 4. Not a b l y,
ho wev er, we were no t as ke d to ad dr es s, an d di d n o t ad dr es s, an y arg um en ts

co nc ern in g whe th er Dr. Ru dn er ’s e x p e rt rep or t us ed rel ia bl e m et ho do lo gy or

ot he rwis e pa ss ed m

us te r un de r Dau be rt. The refo re, be cau se no Dau be rt is su es were 2

This is because the district court’s or igina l Dauber t ruling w as a non- appea lable 2 interlocutory

order , which the district cour t had not primed for

interlocutory

appea l. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (providing how a district cour t may make a n otherwise non- appea lable orde r appea lable).
7act ua ll y , or by ne ces sa ry im pl ic at io n, deci de d in th e fir st ap pe al , th e la w of th e cas e
do ct rin e d id no t ap pl y
. Fu rth erm or e, si nc e Dau be rt was no t ad dr es se d in th e ap pe al , th e di st ric t co ur t
ha d th e rig ht to reco ns id er it s pr ev io us ru li ng s on rem an d. As refl ect ed in th e reco rd ,

a t t h e t i me th e di st ric t co ur t en te red it s or de r on rem an d gr an ti ng th e Defen da nt s ’

se co nd Dau be rt mo t i o n an d ren ewed m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, no fin al jud gm en t ha d be en en te red ag ai ns t th e Ci ty of Orla nd o, Fi or in o or Bu rk

. The refo re,

t h e c ou rt ha d th e di sc ret io n an d au th or it y to rev ie w i ts pr io r ru li ng s an d or de rs a n d
th e la w o f th e ca s e d o c t r i n e d i d no t ap pl y
. See Vin ti ll a, 93 1 F.2 d at 14 47 ; se e al so
Tech ni cal Res ou rce Serv ., In c. v. Dor ni er Med ic al Sy s., In c., 13 4 F.3 d 14 58 , 14 65 n.9 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (n ot in g th at a se co nd jud ge m ay reco ns id er ru li ng s by th e fir st jud ge
be fo re fi na l ju dg m en t i s en te red ).

Bu t ev en if th e l a w of th e cas e do ct rin e were to ap pl y he re, th e di st ric t co ur t

pr op erl y ap pl ie d th e ex cep ti on to th e do ct rin e ba se d on ne w ev id en ce. As th e reco rd
sh ows , on rem an d, th e Defen da nt s in tro du ced ne w sc ie nt ifi c te st in g reg ard in g th e
Tase r ECD th at ha d ta ke n pl ace du rin g th e ti m e th at th e cas e ha d be en on ap pe al , an d

a fo ll ow- up de po si ti on of Dr. Ru dn er. The di st ric t co ur t sp eci fic al ly no te d th at ne w

ev id en ce ha d ari se n du rin g th e pe nd en cy of th e ap pe al , an d th at it was rel y in g on th at

ev id en ce, in pa rt, in reac hi ng it s de ci si on

. See Dis t. Ct

. Ord er at 4 n.5 (Ma y 31 , 20 11 )

8(n ot in g, am on g ot he r th in gs , th at “ th e se co nd de po si ti on of Dr. Ru dn er (ta ke n Ja nu ary

5, 20 11 ) co ns ti tu te s new evi de nc e th at m us t b e co ns id ered ”); id . at 6-7 (“ The Co ur t
ha s rev ie wed Dr. Ru dn er’s de po si ti on , ex pe rt rep or t, se co nd ex pe rt rep or t, an d se co nd
de po si ti on in or de r to de te rm in e if Dr. Ru dn er’s ex pe rt te st im on y m eet s th e

req ui rem en ts set for th by D au be rt a nd Ru le 70 2.” ).

Bec au se th is ne w ev id en ce was pr es en te d to an d co ns i d e red by th e di st ric t

co ur t, th e di st ric t co ur t was no t bo un d by th e la w of th e cas e, if an y
. Pi am bi no , 75 7

F.2 d at 11 20 ; se e al so Ja ck so n, 40 5 F.3 d at 12 83 (“ W he n th e reco rd ch an ge s, whi ch
is to sa y whe n th e ev id en ce an d th e in fere nc es th at m ay be dr awn fro m it ch an ge , th e
is su e pr es en te d ch an ge s as well ”). A s a r e s ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t vi ol at e th e
la w of th e cas e do ct ri n e whe n it gr an te d th e Defen da nt s’ Dau be rt an d su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io ns

. And in de ed , it is wor th no ti ng th at Oli ve r do es no t ch al le ng e th e

ex is te nc e of th is ne w ev id en ce, m uc h le ss th e su bs ta nc e of th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng s.
Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

. AFFIRMED.

9