N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL SC ANTLIN; OR A SC ANTLIN,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, v. GENER AL ELEC T R IC C OM PANY, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e , and ESSC O W HOLESALE ELEC TR IC ,

De fe nda n t. No. 15-55104 D.C . No. 5:10-c v-00333-VAP-OP M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia V irginia A. Phillips, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 7, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, FER

NANDEZ, a

nd R A W LINSON, C irc u it Judge s.



# FIL ED M AY 08 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Appe lla nts M ic ha e l a

nd Ora Sc antlin a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Appe lle e Ge ne ra l Ele c tric C om pa ny (GE). M ic ha e l Sc antlin (Sc antlin) c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in holding tha t he wa s re quire d to pre se nt e xpe rt te stim ony to support his c la im pursua nt to C a lifornia ’ s c onsum e r e xpe c tations te st for de sign de fe c ts. Sc antlin a sse rts tha t la y te stim ony wa s suffic ie nt to de m onstra te re a sona ble c onsum e r e xpe c tations of a n ordina ry use r na viga ting the ba

rrie r inside an industria l switc hboa rd. Sc antlin a l so m a inta ins tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in de ny ing his m otion to am e nd the fina l pre tria l c onfe re nc e orde r to pe rm it Sc antlin to proc e e d to tria l on a diffe re nt the ory

of de sign de fe c t ba se d on a risk-be ne fit te st. 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly a pplie d C a lifornia

la w in holding tha

t Sc antlin wa s re quire d to pre se nt e xpe rt te stim ony to support his c onsum e r e xpe c tations the ory of de s ign de fe c t. The workings of the industria l switc hboa

rd and its interna l ba

rrie r we re “ s uffic ie ntly

be y ond c om

m on e xpe rie nc e tha

t the opinion of a

n e xpe rt [wa s] re quire d.” C ampbe ll v . Ge n. Motors C orp. , 32 C a l. 3d 112, 124 (1982) (c ita

tions a nd a lte ra tion om i tte d); se e also Lunghi v . C l ark Equip. C o., Inc . , 153 C a l. App. 3d 485, 496 (1984) (re je c ting the pla i ntiffs’ proffe re d jury instruc tion pre m ise d

on la y te stim ony

ra t he r tha n e xpe rt opinion in support of c onsum e r e xpe c tations te st). In sum , la y te stim ony

from Sc antlin, his supe

rvisor, 2and a

hum an fa c tors witne ss wa s insuffic ie nt to de m onstra te the re a sona

b le e xpe c tations of a

n e le c tric i an 1 c onc e rning the ba rrie r’ s prote c tions whe n pe rform i ng work inside

a pa rtia lly e l e c trifie d switc hboa

rd. Se e Soule

v . Ge n. Motors C orp. , 8 C a l. 4th 548, 567 n.4 (1994) (obse rving tha t “ if the e xpe c tations of the p roduc t’ s lim ite d group of ordina ry c onsum e rs a

re be y ond the la

y e xpe rie nc e c om m on to a ll jurors, e xpe rt te stim ony on the lim i te d subje c t of wha t the produc t’ s a c tua l c onsum e rs do e

x pe c t m ay be prope r” ) (c ita

tion om itte d) (e m

pha sis in the origina l). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Sc antlin’ s m otion to a

m e nd the fina l pre tria l c onfe re nc e orde r. S e e C .F. e x re l . Farnan v . C apistrano Unifie

d Sc h. Dist. , 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th C ir. 2011) (a rtic ulating tha

t

“ [t] he distric t c ourt is give n broa d disc re tion in supervising thepre tria l pha s e of litiga tion, a nd its de c i sions re g arding the pre c lusive e ffe c t of a pre tria l orde r will not be disturbe d unle ss the y e vide nc e a

c le ar a b use of disc re tion” ) (c ita

tions, a lte ra tion, a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ). Sc a

ntlin c onc e de d tha

t he strate gic a lly

re lie d on the c onsum e r e xpe c tations te st in orde r to e xc lude e vide nc e fa vora ble to GE, a

nd shifte d his the o ry

of lia bility only a fte r the distric t c ourt

1 In his opposition to sum m ary judgm e nt, Sc antlin a c k

nowle dge d tha

t this “ is a c a s e a bout whe the r an e le c tric ian would re a sona bly e xpe c t to be sa fe working inside a switc hboa

rd with a ba rrie r wa l l ne ar e ne rgiz e d busba rs.” 3indic a te d tha t e xpe rt te stim ony wa s re q uire d for the c onsum e r e xpe c tations te st. Although GE ale rte d Sc antlin to the ne e d for e xpe rt te s tim o ny , Sc antlin fa ulte d GE for a tte m p ting to “ dic tate pla intiffs’ the ory of de sign de fe c t” and insiste d tha t he wa s e xc lusive ly re ly ing on thec onsum e r e xpe c t a tions te st. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing a m e ndm e nt to thepre tria l orde r ba s e d on Sc antlin’ s la st-m inute shift in trial stra te gy and e nsuing pre

judic e to GE. Se e Eagle v . Am. Te l. & Te le

graph C o. , 769 F.2d 541, 548 (9th C ir. 1985) (holding tha t “ [t] he distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

e nforc ing the pre tria l orde r” be c a use

“ [i] t would beunfa ir to the de fe nda nt to pe rm it the pla intiff to c ha nge strate gie s at [a ] late sta ge of litiga

tion” ); se e also Hunt v . C nty . of Orange , 672 F.3d 606, 616- 17 (9th C ir. 2012) (sa

m e ). AFFIRM E D.

4