2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-3-2010 

# T ed M c C r a ck

e n v . F ord Mtr C o P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3995

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" T e d M c C r a cke n v

. F or d Mtr C o " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 806. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/806A L D
- 2 4 9 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. 09- 3995

___________ T E D A. M CC RA CK E N, A ppel l ant

v. F O R D M O T O R C O M P A N Y ; W IL L IA M C L A Y F O R D , C E O , H is Pre d ec esso r an d S u cc esso r; JO H N D O E , V ice P reside n t, M ark eti n g , F o rd M o tor C o m p a n y , H is P re d e c e s s o r a n d S u c c e s s o r; J O H N D O E , V ic e P re s id e n t E n g in e e ri n g , F o rd M o to r C o m p a n y , H is P re d e c e ss o r a n d S u c c e ss o r; J.L . F R E E D ; CH APM AN FORD ; CH ECK ER FLAG I NC OR PORA TED

____________________________________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. C i v. N o. 07- cv- 02018) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A ni t a B
. B r ody

____________________________________ S u b m itted o n A p p ell ee F o rd M o tor C o m p an y ’s M o ti o n fo r Sum m aryA ffi r m ance and forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J ul y22, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed A ugus t3, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM T e d A . M c C ra c k e n a p p e a ls f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s e n tryo f su m m a ryju d g m e n t inM c C ra c k e n h a s f iled a t lea st tw e lv e o th e r la w su its ra isin g th is g e n e ra l th e o ry , in 1 w h ich h e h a s n a m e d n u m e ro u s o th e r d e f e n d a n ts, in c lu d in g o th e r a u to m o b ile m anufa ctur er s , nucl earpow erpl ant s , and ene r gycompani es t hatpr oduce the gas ol i ne enabl i ng vehi cl es t o t r avel at65 m i l es perhour
. See M cC r acke n v. R
. E
. G i nna N ucl ear Pow erPl ant , L L C , N o. 08- cv- 6217L , 2010 W L 1404115, at*4 ( W
. D
. N
. Y
. M ar . 31, 2 0 1 0 ) ( c o lle c tin g c a s e s ). 2 favor of For d M ot or C om pany ( “For d”)
. For d has fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance , and w e have not i fi ed the part i es t hatw e w i l l co n side r sum m aryact i on w i t h r es pectt o t he
o th er ap p ell ee s as w ell
. W e w il l g ran t F o rd’s m o ti o n an d af firm
. S ee 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 (2 0 0 8 ); 3 d C ir . I.O .P . 1 0 .6
. I. M cC r acke n fi l ed a c om pl ai ntal l egi ng t hathe has contr act ed t hyr oi d canc erbeca us e,
w h e n v e h icle s tra v e l at s p e e d s in e x c e ss o f 6 5 m iles p e r h o u r, “a m b ien t ra d iatio n ” in th e a ir i ncr eas es t o dan g ero u s l evel s i ns i de the ca bi n. H e furt heral l eges t hatt he w i nds hi el ds i ns t al l ed i n For d vehicles p r ovi de i ns uffi ci entpr ot ect i on fr om t hatoccurr ence . H e named
as defe ndant s Fo r d a s wel l a s s e v e r a l Fo r d d e a l e r s h i p s f r o m w h i c h h e b o u g h th i s v e h i c l es ( t h e “ d e a l e r s h i p d e f

e n d a n t s ” ) , a n d a s s e r t e d e i g h ts t a t e - l a w c a u s e s o f a c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g c l a i ms of s t r i ctpr oduct s l i abi l i t yand def ect i ve des i gn. 1 T he d eal ers hip defen dan t s fi l ed a m oti on t o d i sm i ss on st atute of l i m i t at i on s ground s,
w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed. For d t oo fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s t he co m p lai n t on
num er ous gr ound s. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed thatm ot i on i n par tand di s m i s s ed al l but M c Cr a c k e n ’ s c l a i ms f

o rs t r i c tp r o d u c t s l i a b i l i tya n d d e f e c t i v e d e s i g n u n d e rP e n n s y l v a n i a l a w.F o rd ’s m o tio n so u g h t th e p re c lu sio n o f e x p e rt tes tim o n y , an d th u s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t, 2 a s a s a n c t i o n f

o rM c Cr a c k e n ’ s f

a i l u r e t o c o mp l ywi t h t h e s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r . I n o u rv i e w, ho w ever, t he D i stri ctC ou rtm erel ygrant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of F ord bec ause M cC racken fail ed to subm i texp ertevidence in supp ortof h i s cl ai m s. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 29 1. O ur j uri sdi ct i on extends t o those 3 rul i ngs s peci fi ed i n or“‘ fai r l yi nferr ed’ ” fr om t he not i ce of appea l
. See Sul i m a v. T o b yh an n a A rm yD ep o t, 6 0 2 F
. 3 d 1 7 7 , 1 8 4 (3d C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). M cC r acke n’ s not i ce of

appea l r efe r s onl yt o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s Sept ember16, 2009 or derdeny i ng r econs i der at i on of i t s entr yof s um m aryj udgm ent . W e thus r evi ew t hat 3 T h e D istri ct C o u rtalso en tered a sch ed u li n g o rde r, u n d er w h ich M cC rac k en ’s ex p ert repo rt
w as due byA pr i l 6, 2009. S e v e r a l d a y s b e f

o r e t h a td e a d l i n e , M c Cr a c k e n f i l e d a mo t i o n f

o r a n e x t e n s i o n o f

t i me t o r et ai n an expe r tand a mot i on forappoi nt m ent of an expert pur s uant t o Fed. R
. E vi d. 706. ( H e al s o fi l ed a docum entent i t l ed “Repor tof Exper t s , ” w hi ch s etfort h t he names of ni ne
e x p e rts h e a n ticip a ted c a lli n g a t trial, th o u g h h e n e v e r re tain e d th e m a n d th e yd id n o t su b m it
r epor t s on hi s behal f. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed tho s e mot i ons byor derent er ed A pr i l 8, 2 0 0 9 . F o rd th e n m o v e d f o r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e b a sis o f M c C ra c k e n ’s f a ilu re to tim e ly pr es entexpertevi dence i n s upport of hi s cl ai m s . W hi l e thatm ot i on w as pendi ng, t he D i s t r i ct C our ts ua s pont e di s m i s s ed the s ui tforl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on beca us e i tappea r ed t hatt he part i es w er e not di ver s e, but l at er gr ant ed re cons i der at i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen gr ant ed For d’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entbyor der ent er ed Jul y 28, 2009. M cC r acke n 2 fi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed on Sept ember16, 2 0 0 9 . H e a lso f

iled a m o tio n f

o r le a v e to f

il e a “ su p p lem e n tal” c o m p lain t ag a in st c e rta in
cou nsel , and t he D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed thatm oti on i n the sam e order. M cC racken ap peals
. 3ru lin g , th e u n d e rl y in g e n tr yo f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, a n d a ll o th e r r u lin g s f a ir ly re la te d to it. See i d. I n doi ng s o, w e r evi ew t he deni al of r econs i der at i on forabus e of di s cr et i on, th o u g h w e re v iew u n d e rly in g iss u e s o f law d e n o v o . S e e M a x ’s S e a f o o d C a f é e x re l. L o u -A n n , Inc
. v . Q u interos, 17 6 F
. 3 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 3 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ). W e e x erc ise p lena ry r evi ew overt he entr yof s um m aryj udgm ent . See B err i erv. Si m pl i ci t yM fg. , I nc. , 563 F
. 3 d 3 8 , 4 5 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ). F inally , w e re v iew fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deci s i on w hethert o appoi ntan expe r t , s ee I n r e R i t e A i d C orp. Sec. L i t i g. , 396 F. 3d 294, 2 9 9 -3 0 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), i ts m a n a g e m e n t o f d is c o v e ry, se e G a lla s v . S u p re m e C o u rt o f P a ., 211 F. 3d 760, 778 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , and i t s deni al of l eave t o amend a compl ai nt , s ee J ones v. A B N A m r o M or t g. G r oup, I nc. , 606 F. 3d 119, 123 ( 3d C i r . 2010)
. M cC r acke n’ s not i ce of appe al does notm ent i on t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der s di s m i s s i ng t he compl ai ntas t o t he deal er s hi p defe ndant s ordi s m i s s i ng s i x count s of the compl ai ntas t o For d, and M c Cr a c k e n h a s r a i s e d n o a r g u me n t s r e g a r d i n g t h o s e ru l i n g s . Ne v e r t h e l e s s , e v e n i f we w e re to re v iew th e m , w e se e n o b a sis to c h a llen g e th e m f o r th e re a so n s th o ro u g h ly e x p lain e d b yth e D istric t C o u rt. 4 II. M cC r acke n does notd ir ec tl y chal l enge the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t hathe w as req u ir ed to su p p o rth is cl aim s o f stri ct pro d u cts l iabili tyan d d ef ec ti v e d esig n w ith ex p ert t es t i m ony . G i ven the hi ghl yt echni cal natur e of t he subj ect m at t er , how ever , w e agr ee that he w as . C f. O ddi v. For d M ot orC o. , 234 F. 3d 136, 159 ( 3d C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) (e x per tt es t i m ony gener al l y r equi r ed i n pr oduct s l i abi l i t y cas es unl es s t he i s s ues ar e “‘ s i m pl e’ ” and “ ‘ w i t hi n t he
ran g e o f c o m p reh en sion o f th e a v era g e juro r’”) (cit ati o n o m itted). I ns t ead, M cC r acke n r ai s es w hat w e cons t rue as s i x ot herar gum ent s . N one of them has m er i t . Fi r s t , he appe ar s t o ar gue thath e su b m i t t ed s uffi ci entevi dence t o s ur vi ve
sum m ary j ud gm ent ev en i n t he absenc e of ex pertt est i m on y . W e dis agree. In vari ou s fi l i ng s, M cC r acke n s ubm i t t ed: ( 1) gener al E nvi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on A dm i ni s t r at i on dat a r egar di ng envi r onm ent al r adi at i on; ( 2) l i s t s of books and art i cl es ; ( 3) t he tr ans cr i ptof the depos i t i onD u rin g H o f f m a n ’s d e p o sitio n , h is c o u n se l sta ted th a t H o f f m a n w a s a p p e a rin g o n ly 4 beca us e M cC r acke n had s erved hi m w i t h a fe der al s ubpoena a nd t hathe w oul d not co n sen t t o serv e a s an ex p ert. (D ist
. C t. D o ck et N o . 8 2 , A tt ac h
. 4
. ). 5 of K enneth H offman, a r epr es ent at i ve of the P ennsy l vani a D epart m entof Envi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on; and ( 4) aff i davi t s fr om hi s m other a n d hi m r epor t i ng t hatt heyobs erved 4 i ncr eas ed r eadi ngs on a G ei ger m et er as t hei r vehi cl e acce l er at ed. ( D i s t . C t . D ocket N os . 58, 61, 63- 64, 79 and 82-85. ) N one of t hi s evi dence cr eat es a t r i abl e i s s ue of f actr egar di ng t he
cause o f M cC racken’s cancer ort he d esi gn of F ord’s w i nd shi el ds. Second, M cC r acke n ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n r efus i ng t o appoi ntan
e x p e rt u n d e r F e d . R . E v id . 7 0 6 . M c C ra c k e n so u g h t ap p o in tm e n t o f a n e x p e rt o n th e so le groun d thathe h ad b een u nab l e t o r et ai n one. T he D i stri ct C ou rt den i ed that requestbecau se M cC r acke n had ampl e oppor tuni t yt o r et ai n an expert and beca us e the purpos e of Rul e 706 i s n o tt o p r o v i d e “ l i t i g a t i o n a s s i s t a n c e ” t o a p a r t y u n a b l e t o r e t a i n a n e x p e r to n i t s o w n . We
cann o t s a y t h a t t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d o i n g s o . Se e 2 9 Cha r l es A l an W r i ght& V i ct orG old, F eder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e § 6304 ( 1s ted. ) ( not i ng t hat appoi nt m entof an e xper tunderR ul e 706 i s “r ar e undervi r tual l yanyci r cumst ance s ” bec aus e, i nt eral i a, s uch appoi nt m ent“i nt er fer es w ith adver s ar i al contr ol overt he pr es ent at i on of
ev iden ce ”). T hi r d, M cC r acke n ar g u e s th a tt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have gr ant ed hi m an ext ens i on of t im e to ret ai n hi s ow n expert . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed M cC r acke n’ s r eques ton t he g ro u n d s th a t ith a d g ra n ted h im f o u r e a rlier e x ten sio n s d u rin g th e a lm o st tw o y e a rs th a t h isM cC r acke n al s o ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n quas hi ng s ubpoenas he s erved 5 on t w o ot herFor d empl oy ees . For d fi l ed a mot i on t o quas h t hos e s ubpoenas ( D ocketN o. 5 9 ), b u t th e D istri ct C o u rtn ev er ru led o n it , ap p are n tl yb ec au se iten tered su m m ary j u d g m e n ti n f

a v o ro f F o r d o n t h e i s s u e o f

e x p e r tt e s t i m o n y. 6 c o m p lain t h a d b e e n p e n d in g a n d th a t th e Ja n u a ry2 0 0 9 sc h e d u lin g o rd e r g a v e h im a m p le not i ce thathi s expertr epor tw as due by A pr i l 6, 2009. O nce a gai n, w e ca nnots ayt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng an ext ens i on under t hes e ci r cumst ance s . See G al l as , 211 F. 3d at778. Four t h, M cC r acke n ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n “s uddenl y ” and

“ u n e x p e c te d ly” g r a n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f F o rd w h ile d isc o v e ryw a s s til l
o n g o ing
. F o rd, ho w ev er, m o v ed fo r sum m ary jud g m en t af ter the de ad li n e fo r M cC rac k en ’s expert r epor t had pas s ed. M cC r acke n fi l ed numer ous document s i n oppos i t i on t o t hatm ot i on and , w h e n th e D ist ri ctC ou rtgrant ed it , dis cov eryhad been cl osed f or over fou r m on t hs. T hus , t her e w as not hi ng i r r egul ari n t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on t o ent ers um m aryj udgm ent
w hen i tdi d. Fi fth, M cC r acke n ar gues t hatt he D i s t ri ctC our terr ed i n quas hi ng a not i ce of dep osi t i on add res sed t o F ord’s C hief E xecu t i ve O ffi cer, A l an M ull al y . W e need no tadd res s 5 t h i s a r g u me n tb e c a u s e , e v e n i f t h e Di s t r i c tCo u rta b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h a t r e g a r d ( a n d we
see n o ind icati o n that itd id), an ysu ch erro r w o u ld b e h arm less in li g h t of M cC rac k en ’s fai l ur e t o s ubm i texpertevi dence
. See 28 U
. S. C
. § 2111. F in a lly , M c C ra c k e n a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in re f u sin g toF o rd s e e k s a n o rd e r b a rr in g M c C ra c k e n f ro m f u rt h e r f ilin g s w ith o u t le a v e o f

C o u rt . 6 W e decli ne to t ake thatst ep at this t i m e. F ord al so request s cost s and d am ages, a p p a re n tlyu n d e r F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 8 . F o rd h a s n o t p re se n ted th a t re q u e st b yse p a ra te m o ti o n , so w e e x p ress n o o p inion o n w h ethe r san cti o n s m igh t be w arran ted. S ee In re C o m p lai n t of

P M D E n ters. , Inc
. , 3 0 1 F
. 3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 2 n . 3 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). 7 al l ow hi m t o fi l e a “ s u p pl ement al ” compl ai ntagai ns tFor d’ s i n- hous e and out s i de couns el and
couns el r epr es ent i ng a thi r d par t y , E l l en H ot t e, w hom he at t empt ed t o depos e. T he D i s t r i ct C ou rtqu ash e d t he sub po ena thatM cC racken served o n H ott e. M cC racken n evertheles s
s oughtl eave t o fi l e a s uppl ement al compl ai nt

— aft ert he D i s t r i ctC our tal r eadyhad ent er ed
su m m a ryju d g m e n t— a lleg in g th a t co u n se l v io late d h is civ il rig h ts by “ in ter f e rin g ” w ith h is at t empt s t o depos e H ot t e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notexpl ai n w hyi tdeni ed thatm ot i on, but M cC r acke n has r ai s ed nothi ng s ugges t i ng t hat i t w as an abuse of di s cr et i on t o do s o under t he ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed her e. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 6