Cornell v. Columbus McKinnon Corporation et al

Filing 117

ORDER RE: MOTION HEARING PREPARATION (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/19/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BRIAN CORNELL,

Case No. 13-cv-02188-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE MOTION HEARING
PREPARATION

9
10

COLUMBUS MCKINNON
CORPORATION ET AL.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. Nos. 100, 102, 103

12

Before the Court are two motions to preclude expert testimony as well a motion for

13

summary judgment, all filed by defendant Yale Industrial Products Inc. (“Yale”). Dkt. Nos. 100,

14

102, 103. This Order allows certain supplemental briefing.

15

1.

Insufficient briefing has been presented on the “risk-hazard” methodology

16

employed by Dr. Manning in this case. See, e.g., Kordek v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 921 F.

17

Supp. 2d 422, 427 (E.D. Pa. 2013); Wielgus v. Ryobi Techs., Inc., No. 08 CV 1597, 2012 WL

18

3643682, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2012) (describing the risk-hazard analysis as “industry

19

recognized”); Morina v. Johnson Controls, Inc., No. 5:10CV125, 2012 WL 1965674, at *3 (E.D.

20

Tex. May 31, 2012) (applying the approach to car seat restraint systems); see also Cortez v. Glob.

21

Ground Support, LLC, No. 09-4138 SC, 2010 WL 5173861, at *4-*5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010)

22

(finding Dr. Manning’s “risk-hazard” methods reliable in a scissor lift case, but leaving open the

23

possibility of a later-filed motion in limine or Daubert hearing); Brannon v. Home Depot U.S.A.,

24

Inc., No. CIV. A. H-00-3160, 2002 WL 34369191, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2002). The parties

25

should be prepared to discuss this issue at the hearing and may, if they choose, file supplemental

26

briefing not to exceed 10 pages by 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 24, 2016..

27
28

2.

Plaintiff should likewise be prepared to discuss Yale’s argument — raised for the

first time in its reply brief — that plaintiff has not designated an expert to testify on the subject of

1

whether the scissor lift failed to meet the reasonable expectation a very limited group of

2

consumers for whom the lift was manufactured, e.g., those who use, purchase, inspect, examine, or

3

otherwise engage with the product that is the scissor lift. See Dkt. 112 at 12; Soule v. General

4

Motions Corp., 8 Cal. 4th 548, 567 n.4 (Cal. 1994). The parties should be prepared to discuss this

5

issue at the hearing and plaintiff may, if he chooses, file supplemental briefing not to exceed 10

6

pages by 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 24, 2016..

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: February 19, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2