FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 18, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 88 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cv -0 18 92 -J SM- TBM ROBERT CANNIOTO, BONNIE CANNIOTO, his wife , Pl ai nt iff s- App el lant s, ve rs us LOUISVILLE LA DDER, INC., a Delaware co rp or at io n, THE HOME DE POT USA, INC., a Delawa re co rp or at io n, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 18 , 20 11 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, HULL andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Thi s i s anap pe al fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er ex cl ud in g t he tes ti m on y of pl ai nt iff’s exp ert , Cha rle s E. Ben ed ic t, Ph .D., andth e g ran t o f de fen dant s Lou is vi ll e Lad de r, In c. an d Th e Hom e Dep otUSA, Inc .’ s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The is su es pre se nt edon ap pe al are: (1) whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng th e ex pe rt t es ti m on y of Dr. B en ed ic t; an d (2 ) whe th er the di st ric t erredinfin di ng th atth e p la in ti ffs were n oten ti tl edto a Ca ss is i in fere nc e an d i n g ran ti ng th e d efen da nt ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. 1 Thi s co urt re vi ews th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo . Fan in v. U.S. Dep t. o

f Vet eran s Af

fa ir s , 57 2 F .3d86 8, 8 71 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). A di st ric t
co urt’s ru li ng ex cl ud in g a n e xp ertwitne ss un de r Ru le 70 2 o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e an d Dau be rt

v. Merr il l Do w Pha rma ceu ti ca ls , 50 9 U.S. 5 79 , 11 3 S . Ct. 27 86 (19 93 ) is rev ie wedforanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Gen er al Elec tr ic Co . v. Jo in er , 52 2 U.S. 1 36 , 11 8 S . Ct. 5 12 (19 97 ); Rin k v. Ch emin ov a , 40 0 F .3d12 86 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. Afte r rev ie win g the reco rd , andread in g t he parti es ’ br ie fs , we firs t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng th e expe rt t es ti m on y of th e p la in ti ffs ’ pr in ci pa l ex pe rt wi tn es s, Dr. Be ne di ct . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ct
co urt’s fi nd in g tha t Dr. Be ne di ct ’s fai le d t es t al on e co ul d s up po rt a n e xc lu si on of
Cassisiv. May tag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). 1 2hi s t es ti m on y . W e al so ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Dr. Be ne di ct ’s

ne w op in io n s etforth inhi s d ep os it io n t es ti m on y vi ol at edFed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 2 6( a)(2 )(B) an d (C ). In Ca ss is i v. Ma

ytag Co mpa ny , 39 6 S o.2 d 1 14 0 (F la . 1s t DCA 1 98 1) , th e Fl or id a ap pe ll at e co urt h el d tha t a l eg al in fere nc e is create d t ha t a p ro du ctwas de fect iv e atth e ti m e o f in jury or th e ti m e o f sa le when itm al func ti on s dur in g no rm al us e. The d is tri ctco urt i n i ts well -rea so ne d o rd er h el d tha t the Ca ss is i in fere nc e is no t ap pl ic ab le to th is cas e b ecau se th e la dd er i n que st io n s ti ll ex is te d
an d h adbe enin sp ect edby the pl ai nt iff s’ exp ert . Mor eo ve r, th e p la in ti ffs di d n ot pr ov e th atth e la dd er m al func ti on edas r equi redby Ca ss is i . Se e Rin k v. Ch emin ov a, In c., 40 0 F .3dat 1 29 5 n .9. Fi na ll y , th e rec or d d em on st rat es th atth e pl ai nt iff fai le d t o s ub

ject t he lad de r to a no rm al op erat io n. Th e la dd er was setup atto o s te ep anan gl e atth e ti m e o f Can ni ot o’s fa ll whi ch , intu rn , cau se d i t t o s li de
as he cli m

be d i t. The reco rdde m on st rat es th atCan ni ot o a ls o fa il edto sec ur e th e to p o f th e la dd er. Acco rd in gl y , forth e ab ov e-s ta te d re as on s, we af firm th e d is tri ct
co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng th e m ot io n t o e xc lu de pl ai nt iff s’ exp ertwitne ss an d t he gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e d efen da nt s. AFFIRMED.

3