### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T A pr i l 30, 2004 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 14527

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 3 8 6 - C V- B - NE O D E S S A D E E H A L L , a s p e r s o n a l re pres ent at i ve of the es t at e o f A g n e s P a tte r s o n , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y O F A M E R I C A , U N I T E D I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y O F A M E R I C A , E m pl oy e e B e ne f

i torW e l f

a r e P l a n on b e h a lf o f T e le d y n e B r o w n E m p lo y e e s , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A p r i l30, 2004)Honora ble Melvin Br

unetti, United States Circuit Judg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * designation. 2 B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U S an d B R U N E T T I , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * B I R C H , C ir c u it J u d g e : T h e n o v e l i s s u e p r e s e n t e d i n th i s ap p e a l i n v o l v e s th e i n t e rp l a y b e twe e n two F e de r a l R ul e s of

E vi de nc e : 901( b) ( 2) , w hi c h a l l ow s non- e xpe r topi ni on t e s t i m ony aboutthe ge nui ne ne s s of ha ndw r i t i ng e vi de nc e ba s e d on s uf f i c i e ntf a m i l i a r i ty , a nd 70 1, w hi ch al l ow s l ayop i ni on t es t i m on y thati s r at i on al l y bas ed on pers on al p e r c e p tio n s . P la in tif

f - ap p e lla n t, O d e s s a D e e H a ll ( “H a ll” ) , f ile d a n a f f id a v it st at i ng thata s i gn ature on a do cum entpu rport i ng t o cancel an i nsurance pol i cy w i th d ef endant -app el l ee , U ni t ed Insura nce C om pany of A m er i ca(“ U ni t ed”) , w as nota uthe nt i c . T he di s tr i c tc our ts truc k the a f f i da vi t , c i t i ng pr e c e de ntf r om our s i s t e rc i r c ui t s , on the gr ound tha t , be c a us e H a l l c oul d notde m ons tr a t e s uf f i c i e nt f a m ilia r ity w ith th e h a n d w r itin g o f th e a lle g e d s ig n a to ry a s r e q u ir e d u n d e rR u le 901( b) ( 2) , he ropi ni on t e s t i m ony w a s notr a t i ona l l y ba s e d on he row n pe r c e pt i ons as re qu i re d u nd erR ul e 701 . A ft erstri ki ng H al l ' s a ff i davi t , the di stri ctcourt gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o U ni t e d ba s e d on the c our t ' s a s s e s s m e nttha tno g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t r e m a in e d . T hi s c our tha s noty e ta ddr e s s e d the f ounda t i on ne c e s s a ry f

orl a y opi ni on t es t i m on y proff

er ed un der R ul es 90 1(b)(2) and 70 1. W e A F F IR M the di stri ct3

c o u r t ' s a s s e s s me n to f

th e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tw e e n th e s e tw o Ru l e s . W e a l s o A FFI RM the di stri ctcourt ' s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm entt o U ni t ed, as w el l as the di stri ct c o u r t's d e c is io n d e n y in g H a ll's m o tio n to f ile a s e c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. I . B AC KG RO UN D B obby P a tt e r s on ( “ B obby ” ) , w ho ha d a l i f e i ns ur a nc e c ontr a c tw i th U ni t e d, w a s d is ab le d d u e to m e n ta l im p a irm e n ts in 1 9 9 0 , a n d w a s p la c e d o n d is ab ility l ea ve by hi s e m pl oyer . U ni t ed w ai ved the prem i um s s o l on g as B ob by com pl i ed w ith p e r io d ic m e d ic a l e x a m in a tio n r e q u ir e m e n ts . In 19 95 , B ob by com pl et ed a “ W ai ver of P re m i um Q uest i on nai re ” that st at ed: “ I r ea l l y do n otw i sh thi s i nsurance t o con t i nu e. Itdo es n' thel p m e a tal l . ” R 1-12 , E x. A -4. U ni t ed se ntB ob by tw o l ett er s r equest i ng thathe com pl et e a w a iv e rf o r m if h e w a n te d to te r m in a te h is lif e in s u r a n c e p o lic y . A doc um e ntda t e d 5 A pr i l 1996, a nd purpor t e dl y s i gne d by B obby , s t a t e d:

“ I, B ob by M . P att er son requestthatm y w ai ver of premi um for m y group l i fe i ns ur a nc e pol i c y thr ough m y f or m e re m pl oy e r. . . be di s c ont i nue d e f f e c t i ve i m m e di a t e l y . ” I d. a tE x. A - 6. I n r e s pons e t o thi s w a i ve rof be ne f i t s , U ni t e d s e nt B ob by a l ett erdat ed 23 Jul y 199 6 i nform i ng hi m thathi s l i fe i nsurance pol i cyhad b e e n te r m in a te d a s p e rh is r e q u e s t.Hall' s complaint was orig inally filed in Alabama State Court but was removed by United 2 to the Norther

n District of Alaba

ma on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. R1-1. 4 A l m os tf oury e a r s l a t e r , B obby di e d. B obby ' s m othe r , A gne s P a tt e r s on (“ A gn es ”) , w as desi gn at ed as the benefi ci ary und erthe U ni t ed l i fe i nsurance po l i cy . A gn es di ed approx i m at el y one and a hal f y ea rs af t erB ob by di ed and n ever m a d e a c la im f

o rb e n e f its u n d e rth e p o lic y . A bouts i x m onths a f

t e rA gne s ' s de a th, H a l l , a s pe r s ona l r e pr e s e nt a t i ve of A gne s ' e s t a t e , m a de a c l a i m f orbe ne f i t s unde rthe pol i c y , a l l e gi ng tw o the or i e s : ( 1) the w ai ver w as no tval i d b ec ause i tw as no tB ob by' s s i gn ature a nd (2) B ob by w as no tm ent al l y c om pet entt o h ave s i gn ed any w ai ver. 2 In su p p o rto f h er arg u m en t s, H al l su b m i tt ed tw o affi d av i t s. T h e fi rst a f f i da vi tw a s e xe c ut e d by H a l l he r s e l f a nd s t a t e d: O ver the course of t i m e thatI knew B ob by P att er son, [m ore than thi rty y ea rs , ] I bec am e f am i l i arw i th h i s handw ri t i ng . I s aw hi m w ri t e, r e c e iv e d c o rr e s p o n d e n c e f r o m h im a n d h e lp e d h im r e v ie w d o c u m e n ts w hi ch he execut ed i n m y pre se nce. I have examined the pu rport ed si gn atures of B ob by P att er son, dat ed A ug ust30 , 19 95 [Q uest i on nai re ] a n d A p r il 5 , 1 9 9 6 [ W a iv e r ] a n d th e y d o n o t ap p e a rto b e h is ha ndw r i t i ng. R 1-21 , E x. A . T he se cond af fi davi tw as subm i tt ed by R occo P etre l l a, a “ l i ce nsed profes si on al coun se l or, ” w ho re vi ew ed m edi ca l re po rt s a nd op i ned thatB ob by w as notm e nt a l l y c om pe t e ntt o ha ve s i gne d a ny doc um e nt s . I d. a tE x. B . O ne of the doc um e nt s r e vi e w e d by P e tr e l l a c ont a i ne d s t a t e m e nt s a nd c onc l us i ons r e a c he d by5

B o b b y 's a tte n d in g p s y c h ia tr is t, w h o c o n c lu d e d th a t B o b b y w a s c o m p e te n t. I n h is a f f id a v it, P e tr e llao f

f e r e d n o e x p la n a tio n f

o rh is a s s e r tio n s to th e c o n tr a ry . T he di s tr i c tc our ts truc k both a f f i da vi t s . A s f

orthe c ouns e l or ' s a f

f i da vi t , the di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned thatthe coun se l or w as no ta m edi ca l expertand there fore h is te s tim o n y w a s in a d m is s ib le u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 7 0 2 . A s fo r H al l ' s affi d av i t , th e d i stri ctco u rtstru ck al l rel ev an tp o rt i o n s b ecau se H a ll h a d n o t d e m o n s tr a te dw ith s u f f ic ie n t r e liab ility h o w s h e w a s f a m ilia rw ith B ob by' s s i gn ature. A f t e rs tr i ki ng both a f

f i da vi t s , the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tno ge nui ne i s s ue s of m a t e r i a l f

a c tr e m a i ne d a nd gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o U ni t e d. T he d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o d e n ie d H a ll's m o tio n to f ile a s e c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t– w ith new cl ai m s r el at ed t o tho se fi l ed i n the fi rs tam ended com pl ai nt–o n the grou nd that the s e c ond a m e nde d c om pl a i ntw oul d be “ f ut i l e ” be c a us e i tc ont a i ne d “ no p o te n tia lly m e r ito r io u s c la im s .” R 1 - 2 7 a t 3 . I I . DI S CUS S I ON H a l l appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ' s de c i s i ons s tr i ki ng both a f f i da vi t s a nd grant i ng sum m ary j ud gm entt o U ni t ed. In addi t i on , on the grou nd thatthe di stri ct c o u r t's g r a n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s in ap p r o p r ia te , H a ll ap p e a ls th e c o u r t'sHall also appe als the district court' s denial of her motion to compel discovery before 3 rulingon United' s summary judgment motion. Beca

use Hall made vague assertions, thereby failingto s atis fy

there quire mentsof

F e deral Ruleof

Civ il Proc e dure56 (f

), wefind thi s argument without merit and aff irm the judgment of the district cour t on this i ssue. See, e .g ., Wal lac ev. B ro wn e ll Po nti a c -GMC Co ., Inc ., 70 3 F .2 d 5 25 , 5 27 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 3) (t

hepa rt y reque sting discovery

under Rule 56( f) must “spec ifically demonstrate how

postponement of a ru l i n g o nth e m o ti o nwi l len ab l e h i m , b y di s co v ery

o r o th er m ean s , t o reb utth e m o v ant 's showingof the a

bsenceof a g enuine issue of fac t”) (c itation omitted). 6 deni al of her m ot i on t o fi l e ase cond am ended com pl ai nt . W e a dd re ss ea ch 3 a r g u m e n ti n tu rn , b e g i n n i n g wi th th e ap p l i c ab l e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. A . T h e A f

f id a v its W e r e vi e w e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs m a de by the di s tr i c tc our tf orabus e of di sc re t i on and w i l l re vers e the di stri ctcourt ' s dec i si on on l y i n cas es w here s ubs t a nt i a l pr e

j udi c e e xi s t s . B r oc hu v. C i ty of R i vi e r a B e a c h, 304 F . 3d 1144, 1155 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . I n th is c a s e , w e c a n n o t s a y th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's d e c is io n to s tr ik e e ith e ra f

f id a v it w a s a n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . 1 . H a ll's A f

f id a v it H a l l ' s a f f i da vi ts t a t e d tha ts he w a s f a m i l i a rw i th B obby ' s ha ndw r i t i ng a nd thatthe si gn ature on the w ai ver di d n otappear t o b e hi s. T he di stri ctcourt , un der R ul e 901( b) ( 2) , s truc k H a l l ' s a f f i da vi tbe c a us e i tpr ovi de d no f ounda t i on de t a i l i ng h o w H a ll h a d b e c o m e f a m ilia rw ith B o b b y 's h a n d w r itin g . A n d b e c a u s e H a ll c o u ld n o t d e m o n s tr a te s u f

f ic ie n t f a m ilia r ity , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld th a t th e a f f id a v it d id no tsa t i sf y R ul e 701 because herop i ni on t es t i m on y “ w ou l d n otbe ra t i on al l y bas ed7

on her ow n p er ce pt i on s. ” R 1-28 at6. In re ac hi ng thi s c on cl usi on , the di stri ctcourt r e l i e d on de c i s i ons by ours i s t e rc i r c ui t s be c a us e thi s c our tha s notrul e d on the p r o p e rf o u n d a tio n r e q u ir e d f

o rte s tim o n y a d m itte d u n d e rR u le s 7 0 1 a n d 9 0 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) . W e do so n ow , begi nn i ng w i th a general di sc ussi on of the tw o R ul es and then c o n s id e r in g p e r s u a s iv e a u th o r ity f r o m o u rs is te rc ir c u its . a . R ul e s 701 a nd 901( b) ( 2) R ul e 701 go verns l ayw i tness op i ni on t es t i m on y gener al l y a nd di ct at es that s uc h t e s t i m ony m us tm e e tthr e e r e qui r e m e nt s , one of w hi c h i s r e l e va nthe r e : the t e s t i mo n y mu s tb e “ r a t i o n a l l y b a s e d o n th e p e r c e p t i o n o f th e w i tn e s s . ” Fe d . R. E vi d. 701( a ) . R ul e 901( b) ( 2) i s a m or e s pe c i f i c rul e , gove rni ng l a y w i tne s s opi ni on t es t i m on y a s i tre l at es t o the i dent i fi ca t i on of hand w ri t i ng . T hi s rul e r equi re s that

“ [n] on -e xp ertop i ni on [t es t i m on y] as t o the genu i neness of hand w ri t i ng [m ustbe] ba s e d upon f

a m i l i a r i ty nota c qui r e d f orpurpos e s of

the l i t i ga t i on. ” F e d. R . E vi d. 9 0 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h u s , te s tim o n y p u rp o r tin g to s a tis f y th e s p e c if

ic r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

R u le 9 0 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) m u s t a ls o s a tis f y th e g e n e r a l r e q u ir e m e n ts in R u le 7 0 1 . I f e ith e rR u le is n o t s a tis f ie d , th e te s tim o n y is in a d m is s ib le . W e have notprevi ou sl y had occas i on t o d et ai l the neces sa ryfoun dat i on a l ay pe r s on m us te s t abl i s h unde rR ul e s 901( b) ( 2) a nd 701 i n or de rt o t e s t i f y c onc e rni ng h a n d w r itin g . U n ite d S ta te s v . B a rk e r , 7 3 5 F .2 d 1 2 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) , is th e o n ly8

p u b lis h e d o p in io n b y th is c o u r t d is c u s s in g th e s e tw o R u le s . I n th a t c a s e , w e h e ld th atl ay w i tn ess o p i n i o n t est i m o n y b y tw o co -w o rk ers o f th e d efen d an t -si g n at o ry, w ho w as char ged w i th st ea l i ng bank chec ks, w as prop er l y a dm i tt ed un der R ul es 90 1(b)(2) and 70 1. Id. at12 83 . W e not ed that“ [b] oth w i tness es t es t i fi ed they w e r e f a m ilia rw ith th e d e f

e n d a n t's h a n d w r itin g a n d s ta te d th a t in th e iro p in io n s it m a tc h e d o rw a s s im ila rto th e h a n d w r itin g o n th e c h e c k s .” I d . W e d id n o t, ho w ever , prov i de gu i dance det ai l i ng ho w a w i tness coul d d em on stra t e hi s or her f a m i l i a r i ty w i th di s put e d ha ndw r i t i ng. F ordi r e c t i on, w e c ons i de rthe de c i s i ons of o u rs is te rc ir c u its , a s d id th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.

b . P e r s u a s iv e A u th o r ity I n U n ite d S ta te s v . B in z e l, r e lie d u p o n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, th e S e v e n th C i rc ui tconcl ud ed that“ there m ustbe a m i ni m al fa ctual base s f rom w hi ch know l e dge of

, a nd a f a m i l i a r i ty w i th, a nothe r ' s ha ndw r i t i ng m i ghtr e a s onabl y ha ve b e e n a c q u ir e d , in th e ab s e n c e o f w h ic h th e o p in io n e v id e n c e m a y b e p r o p e r ly excl ud ed. ” 907 F . 2d 74 6, 74 9 (7th C i r. 19 90 ). In the af fi davi tati ss ue i n thatca se , B i nzel pu rport ed t o t es t i fythatthe si gn ature of the gu ar ant or on the gu ar ant ee a gr e e m e ntw a s f

or ge d. B i nz e l a s s e r t e d “ tha the a c qui r e d hi s ' f a m i l i a r i ty ' w i th [ the gua r a nt or ' s ] s i gna tur e ” by obs e r vi ng the gua r a nt ore xe c ut e doc um e nt s a nd vi e w i ng do cum ent s thatw er e purpo rt edl y e xecut ed by the gu ar ant or. Id. T he di stri ctcourt9

struck the af

fi davi tand the S eventh C i rc ui taf fi rm ed, no t i ng thatthe prop er f o u n d a tio n f

o rf a m ilia r ity w a s n o t e s tab lis h e d : B i nz e l doe s noti de nt i f

y the na tur e of

the “ doc um e nt s ” t o w hi c h he refers, or att em p tt o est ab l i sh th e au th en t i ci ty o r g en u i n en ess o f th o se doc um e nt s . N e i the rdoe s he i de nt i f y a r e l a t i ons hi p orc our s e of b u s in e s s w ith [ th e g u a r a n to r ] th a t w o u ld r e a s o n ab ly f a m ilia r iz e h im w i th [ the gua r a nt or ' s ] s i gna tur e . H i s opi ni on a s t o the a uthe nt i c i ty of [th e g u aran t o r' s] si g n atu re i s b ased o n n o th i n g m o re th an co n cl u so ry, sel f-serv i n g al l eg at i o n s. I d . M ore r ec ent l y, the F i rs tC i rc ui taddres se d the i nt erpl aybetw ee n R ul es 901( b) ( 2) a nd 701, hol di ng tha tboth m us tbe s a t i s f i e d be f or e l a y w i tne s s opi ni on t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng ha ndw r i t i ng w i l l be a dm i s s i bl e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , 270 F . 3d 30 , 49 (1stC i r. 20 01 ). In S cott , the defendant(S cott ) w as char ged w i th, i nt er a l i a , m a ki ng a nd pos s e s s i ng a f or ge d c he c k. I d. a t33. D ona hue , a n I R S a ge nt in v o lv e d in th e in v e s tig a tio n , p u rp o r te d to te s tif y th a t c e r ta in d o c u m e n ts w e r e in S c ott ' s ha ndw r i t i ng. D ona hue ha d be e n i nve s t i ga t i ng S c ottf orm a ny y e a r s a nd, dur i ng tha tt i m e , ha d s e e n m a ny e xa m pl e s of S c ott ' s ha ndw r i t i ng, i nc l udi ng: three t o fi ve l ett er s, fi ve t o t en courtpl ea di ng s, si gn ature c ar ds t o o pen th r e e b a n ka c c o u n ts in S c o tt's n a m e , f if ty o rs ix ty c h e c k s a n d d e p o s it s lip s f o rth o s e a c c o u n ts , f

iv e to te n m o n e y o r d e r s , ap p lic a tio n s to f ile t a x r e turns e l e c tr oni c a l l y , tw o dr i ve r ' s l i c e ns e s , a pi l ot ' s l i c e ns e , a nd fi ve t o t en form s S cotthad si gn ed as partof bo ok i ng procedures a t pol i c e s t a t i ons , a m ong othe r s . D ona hue a l s o s a w S c otts i gn a do cum enti n h i s pre se nce: a f i ng erpri ntca rd atthe m ar shal ' s off i ce d u r in g a n e a r lie rin v e s tig a tio n .10

I d . a t 4 8 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o rb a d e D o n a h u e 's id e n tif ic a tio n o f

S c o tt's ha ndw r i t i ng, butthe F i r s tC i r c ui tr e ve r s e d, hol di ng tha t“ the r e w a s e nough fa m i l i ar i ty on the partof the w i tness [D on ahue] t o adm i tthe t es t i m on y, ” e ven th o u g h D o n a h u e w itn e s s e d S c o tt a c tu a lly s ig n h is n a m e o n ly o n c e . I d . a t 5 0 . I n th is c a s e , H a ll's a f

f id a v it s ta te s th a t s h e b e c a m e f a m ilia rw ith B o b b y 's ha ndw r i t i ng ove rthe c our s e of thi r ty y e a r s . R 1- 21, E x. A . H a l l a s s e r t s tha ts he

“ sa w [B ob by] w ri t e, re ce i ved corres po nd ence fr om hi m and h el ped h i m re vi ew d o c u m e n ts w h ic h h e e x e c u te d in m y p r e s e n c e .” I d . U n lik e th e d e ta ils p r o v id e d in S c otta nd s i m i l a rt o the ba l d a l l e ga t i ons i n B i nz e l , H a l l ' s a f f i da vi tdoe s notpr ovi de the prop erfoun dat i on det ai l i ng ho w her f am i l i ar i ty w i th B ob by' s handw ri t i ng w as ob t ai ned. W hi l e w i tness i ng the di sput ed si gn ature i s notre qu i re d, se e, e. g. , U ni t ed S t at es v. T i pt on , 96 4 F . 2d 65 0, 65 5 (7th C i r. 19 92 ), w e c on cl ud e thatthe l ay w itn e s s m u s t p r o v id e m o r e d e ta ile d in f o rm a tio n r e g a r d in g a n y “c o rr e s p o n d e n c e ,” “d o c u m e n ts ,” o rth e lik e , r e lie d u p o n to e s tab lis h f a m ilia r ity . S u c h in s tru m e n ts m us tbe i de nt i f

i e d w i th pa r t i c ul a r i ty . M or e ove r , the l a y w i tne s s m us tpr ovi de det ai l ed i nform at i on re gardi ng hi s or herre l at i on shi p w i th the si gn at ory––w hether i tbe fa m i l i al , profes si on al , or otherw i se pers on al . In thi s c as e, H al l has provi ded no det ai l ed i nform at i on re gardi ng ei ther the i nstrum ent s r el i ed up on t o g arner fam i l i ari ty w i th B o b b y' s h an d w ri t i n g o r h er rel at i o n sh i p w i th h i m . A cco rd i n g l y,Inad di ti o nt o s tri ki n g th o s e p o rt i o n s o f H al l 's af fi d av i tre l at i n g t o Bo b b y's h an dwri ti n g, 4 th e d i s tri ctco urtal s o s tru ckth e p o rt i o n s o f h er af fi d av i tre l at i n g t o h er

o p i n i o nas t o Bo b b y's mental condition. R1-28 at 7. B eca use Hall was not qualified to testify as to Bobby' s mental c a pac ity, th edis tric t c ourt ' s de c isi on to s triketho sepo rtion s o f H all' s a ff ida vit wa s n ot a

n a bu se of discretion and is affirme d. The portions of Hall's a ffidavit re lating to B obby' s behavior ba sed on her personal knowledg e were properly admitted. I d. 11 w e c anno tsa y thatthe di stri ctcourt ' s dec i si on t o stri ke H al l ' s a ff i davi tw as an abus e of di s c r e t i on. 4 2 . C o u n s e lo r 's A f

f id a v it H al l subm i tt ed the af

fi davi tof R occo P etre l l a–a “ l i ce nsed profes si on al coun se l or”–as an experti n m ent al heal th d i agno se s, for hi s opi ni on thatB ob by w as notc om pe t e ntt o s i gn the U ni t e d w a i ve ron 5 A pr i l 1996. R 1- 21, E x. B . T he d is tr ic t c o u r t s tru c k P e tr e lla 's a f f id a v it o n th e g r o u n d th a t it f a ile d th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f R u le 7 0 2 o f

th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

E v id e n c e . A s the di s tr i c tc our tnot e d, a dm i s s i on of e xpe r tt e s t i m ony i s gove rne d by R u le 7 0 2 , w h ic h s ta te s : I f s c i e nt i f i c , t e c hni c a l , orothe rs pe c i a l i z e d know l e dge w i l l a s s i s tthe tri erof fa ctt o u nd er st and the evi dence or t o d et erm i ne a f ac ti n i ss ue, a w i tness qu al i fi ed as an expertby kn ow l edge, ski l l , experi ence , tr a i ni ng, ore duc a t i on, m a y t e s t i f y the r e t o i n the f

or m of a n opi ni on or otherw i se , i f ( 1) the t es t i m on y i s bas ed up on suff i ci entfa ct s or dat a, (2 ) th e t est i m o n y i s th e p ro d u cto f rel i ab l e p ri n ci p l es an d m eth o d s, a n d ( 3 ) th e w itn e s s h a s ap p lie d th e p r in c ip le s a n d m e th o d s r e liab ly to the fa ct s of the ca se . F e d. R . E vi d. 702. “ T he bur de n of l a y i ng the pr ope rf

ounda t i on f

orthe a dm i s s i on o f ex p ertt est i m o n y i s o n th e p arty o fferi n g th e ex p ert , an d th e ad m i ssi b i l i ty m u st12

b e s h o w n b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e .” A llis o n v . M c G h a n M e d . C o rp ., 1 8 4 F .3 d 1 3 0 0 , 1 3 0 6 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 9 9 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t, in D a u b e r t v . M e rr e ll D o w Ph a r ms . , I n c . , 5 0 9 U . S. 5 7 9 , 5 9 7 , 1 1 3 S. Ct . 2 7 8 6 , 2 7 9 8 ( 1 9 9 3 ) a n d K h u mo T i re C o. , L t d. v. C arm i chae l , 52 6 U . S . 13 7, 15 2, 11 9 S . C t . 11 67 , 11 76 (199 9), has d i ct at ed th atd i stri ctco u rt s actas g at ek eep ers an d h av e “ co n si d erab l e l eew ay” w he n de c i di ng t o a dm i tore xc l ude e xpe r tt e s t i m ony . A c c or di ngl y , “ ourr e vi e w of evi dent i ary rul i ng s by tri al court s on the adm i ss i on of expertt es t i m on y i s very l i m i t ed. ” M cC orvey v. B axt erH ea l thcar e C orp. , 29 8 F . 3d 12 53 , 12 57 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . In thi s c as e, P etre l l a' s “ expert ” opi ni on w as base d o n h i s r evi ew of se vera l d o c u m e n ts r e la te d to B o b b y 's m e n ta l h e a lth , in c lu d in g s ta te m e n ts m a d e b y B o b b y 's att endi ng psyc hi atri st . W hi l e B ob by' s m edi ca l do ct or concl ud ed thathe w as c o m p e te n t, P e tr e llac a m e to th e o p p o s ite c o n c lu s io n , w ith n o e x p la n a tio n o f f e r e d in hi s a f f i da vi tf orthi s c ontr a ry r e s ul t . T he di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tH a l l “ [ ha d] n o t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t th e in f o r m a tio n P e tr e llar e v ie w e d c o n ta in e d s u f f ic ie n t f a c ts orda t a upon w hi c h t o ba s e [ hi s ] opi ni on, ” R 1- 28 a t8, a nd tha t“ P e tr e l l a [ di d] not c i t e t o a ny s c i e nt i f

i c m e thodol ogy orl i t e r a tur e s uppor t i ng hi s c onc l us i ons or ap p r o v in g o f

th e m e th o d h e e m p lo y e d to m a k e th o s e c o n c lu s io n s ,” id . a t 9 . M oreover, the di stri ctcourtst at ed thatH al l “ [had] no tsuff i ci ent l y dem on stra t ed13

thatcoun se l ors w i th si m i l artra i ni ng ar e qual i fi ed t o render an opini on as t o an i ndi vi dua l ' s m e nt a l c apa c i ty . ” I d. a t8. B a s e d on our“ l i m i t e d” r e vi e w of the di stri ctcourt ' s dec i si on t o stri ke P etre l l a' s a ff i davi t , w e c anno tsa y thatthe di stri ct c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is a f f irm e d . B . S um m a ry J udgm e nt

“ W e r evi ew the tri al court ' s gra ntor deni al of a m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm e ntde novo, vi e w i ng the r e c or d a nd dr a w i ng a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s i n the lig h t m o s t f

a v o r ab le to th e n o n - m o v in g p a r ty .” P a tto n v . T r ia d G u a r . I n s . C o rp ., 27 7 F . 3d 12 94 , 12 96 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). S um m ary j ud gm enti s app ropri at e w hen “th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n y m a te r ia l f a c t a n d . . . th e m o v in g p a r ty is ent i t l ed t o a j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ). In thi s c as e, be c a us e no m a t e r i a l f

a c tua l di s put e s r e m a i ne d, w e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc our t ' s gr a nt o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to U n ite d . I n th is c a s e , w e h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly s tru c k b o th ( 1) the por t i ons of

H a l l ' s a f f i da vi tr e l a t i ng t o B obby ' s m e nt a l c apa c i ty a nd the v a lid ity o f

h is s ig n a tu r e , a n d ( 2 ) P e tr e lla 's p u rp o r te d e x p e r t a f f id a v it r e la tin g to B obby ' s m e nt a l c apa c i ty . B e c a us e a l l of H a l l ' s e vi de nc e c ha l l e ngi ng the va l i di ty of B ob by' s w ai ver of i nsurance benef i t s has been excl ud ed, no genu i ne i ss ue of fa ctWe note that Rule 901(b)(3)provides, alter natively, that the trier of

fac t or an e xpert 5 handwriting witness may deter mine the validity

of a c ontested signature . Fe d. R. Evid. 901(b)( 3). In this case, however, H all offered only her own aff

idavit challeng ing thevalidity of Bobby' s signature on the United insurancewaiver . She did not submi t any of the “ c or re sp on denc e ”sh ere c e ive d f ro m B obby

or any of the“ do cuments ”healle g e dly e xecute d in her presenc e as evidenceof his proper signature. More over, H all did not offer any expert testimony as to the validity

of B obby' s signature on the w aiver . Whil e Hall asserts that the validity of B obby' s signature is a g enuine issue of material fac t that remains for jury consideration, this material fac t is not di sputed bec ause all of Hall' s evidenc e in support of her contention was properly

struck. See F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Thus, United is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

and Rule 901(b) (3) doe s not apply in this case. See id. 14 r e m a in s a s to w h e th e rth e U n ite d p o lic y w a s w a iv e d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly c o n c lu d e d th a t “[ w ]ith o u t a n e x is tin g p o lic y o f lif e in s u r a n c e , U n ite d o w e d n o d u ty t o pa y l i f e i ns ur a nc e be ne f

i t s t o [ A gne s ] . ” R 1- 28 a t9. T hus , s um m a ry j udgm e nt w a s pr ope r l y gr a nt e d i n f a vorof U ni t e d. 5 C . M ot i on t o F i l e A m e nde d C om pl a i nt W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ' s dec i si on t o d eny H al l ' s m ot i on t o am end h er c o m p l a i n tf

o ra n ab u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n . Gr e e n L e a f Nu r s e ry v . E . I . Du P o n tDe N em ou rs and C o. , 34 1 F . 3d 12 92 , 13 00 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). In thi s c as e, the di stri ct co u rtd en i ed H al l ' s m o t i o n o n th e g ro u n d th atg ran t i n g i tw o u l d b e “ fu t i l e” b ecau se he rs e c ond a m e nde d c om pl a i ntc ont a i ne d “ no pot e nt i a l l y m e r i t or i ous c l a i m s . ” R 1- 27 a t3. W e c onc l ude thi s de c i s i on w a s nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on a nd a f

f i rm the d is tr ic t c o u r t's o r d e rd e n y in g H a ll's m o tio n to f ile a s e c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. O rd i n ari l y, “ [i ] f th e u n d erl yi n g fact s o r ci rcu m st an ces rel i ed u p o n b y a pl a i nt i f f m a y be a pr ope rs ubj e c tof r e l i e f , ” F r om a n v. D a vi s , 371 U . S . 178, 182, 8315

S. Ct . 2 2 7 , 2 3 0 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , l e a v e t o a me n d “ s h o u l d b e f r e e l y g i v e n , ” Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 15( a ) . U nde rF r om a n, how e ve r , a di s tr i c tc our tm a y pr ope r l y de ny l e a ve t o a m e nd the c om pl a i ntunde rR ul e 15( a ) w he n s uc h a m e ndm e ntw oul d be f ut i l e . F r om a n, 3 7 1 U .S . a t 1 8 2 , 8 3 S . C t. a t 2 3 0 . “T h is c o u r t h a s f o u n d th a t d e n ia l o f

le a v e to a m e n d is ju s tif

ie d b y f u tility w h e n th e c o m p la in t a s a m e n d e d is s till s u b je c t to di s m i s s a l . ” B ur ge rK i ng C orp. v. W e a ve r , 169 F . 3d 1310, 1320 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I n thi s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y de ni e d H a l l ' s m ot i on t o f i l e a s e c ond am en d ed co m p l ai n tb ecau se th e th ree n ew cl ai m s assert ed , l i k e th o se i n h er fi rst a m e nde d c om pl a i nt , w oul d ha ve be e n s ubj e c tt o di s m i s s a l a s a m a tt e rof l a w . T he fi rs ttw o n ew cl ai m s w er e pre di ca t ed on the exi st ence of a val i d i nsurance c on tra ct betw ee n B ob by and U ni t ed atthe t i m e of hi s dea th. B ec ause the di stri ctcourt pr ope r l y gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nton thi s i s s ue , de ni a l of H a l l ' s m ot i on t o a dd th e s e tw o n e w c la im s w a s p r o p e r . H a ll's th ir d n e w c la im in v o lv e d f r a u d a lle g e d ly com m i tt ed agai nstB ob by by bo th U ni t ed and h i s f orm erem pl oyer . A s the di stri ct courtcorr ec t l y not ed, ho w ever , fr aud cl ai m s do n otsurvi ve B ob by' s dea th. S ee M i l l er v . D o b b s M o b i l e B ay, In c. , 6 6 1 S o . 2 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 5 (A l a. 1 9 9 5 ). A cco rd i n g l y, the di stri ctcourt ' s deni al of H al l ' s m ot i on t o fi l e ase cond am ended com pl ai ntas f u tile w a s n o t a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n a n d is a f

f irm e d .16 I I I . CONCL US I ON In thi s app ea l , H al l al l eged thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y s tri ki ng her af fi davi tand the af

fi davi toffe re d b y herexpert , R occo P etre l l a. S he al so al l eged error i n the di stri ctcourt ' s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm entt o U ni t ed and the di stri ct c o u r t's ju d g m e n t d e n y in g h e rm o tio n to f ile a s e c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. W e di s a gr e e w i th a l l of

the a r gum e nt s pr of

f e r e d by H a l l a nd f

i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or c o m m itte d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. A c c o r d in g ly , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F I R M E D .