Dixon v. Nike USA, Inc.

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 10/8/14. (dass, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 10/9/14-das)

•

-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CARL DIXON

v.
FOOT LOCKER, INC., ET AL.

*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil No. - JFM-13-l926
.JfJ'\'

,~.I'1I.N

******
MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff has instituted these consolidated actions against Foot Locker, Inc. and NIKE
USA, Inc. Plaintiff is appearing pro se. Discovery is closed, and each defendant has filed a
motion for summary judgment.

J

The motions will be granted.

Plaintiffs essential claim is that he purchased NIKE sneakers from Foot Locker believing
that they were proper for use in playing basketball and that on the first occasion that he used
them, he slipped and seriously injured his knee and leg. As reflected in the papers that he has
filed, plaintiff is quite articulate. He does not, however, understand the legal system, particularly
the duty that he is under to present evidence in response to a summary judgment motion
.reflecting that he can prove each of the elements of his claims. See Runnebaum v. NalionsBank
of Maryland, NA., 123 F.3d 156, 163 (4th Cir. 1997).
Here, plaintiff has not hired an expert prepared to testify that it was a defect in the
sneakers purchased by plaintiff or that any defect was the proximate cause of his fall. Expert
testimony is necessary because slips and falls in the game of basketball, some of which lead to
1 Plaintiff has filed a "motion to compel a discovery response," seeking to depose Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses offered by
defendants. Discovery, however, has been closed, and plaintiffs motion will be denied. The motion was filed two
months after this court summarily denied plaintiffs efforts to depose chief executive officers of defendants. Selfevidently, plaintiffs request to depose the chief executive officers was improper since plaintiff proffered nothing to
show that their testimony would add anything to the case. It was in response to plaintiffs request to depose the
chief executive officers that defendants offered Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, and plaintiff did not seek to follow up on
that offer until discovery was closed.

,

.
serious injury, are not uncommon. Therefore, it cannot be inferred from the nature of the
accident or from any circumstantial evidence that an alleged defect in the sneakers was the
proximate cause of plaintiffs

injuries. See generally Parker v. Allentown, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 2d

773,780 (D. Md. 2012).
A separate order granting the motions for summary judgment filed by defendants is being
entered herewith.

Date:

t:t;rl- ~

&b----

-/7

J. ¥derick M~
Umted States District Judge

J.,10d30

J.,S

3~OWl11\fS1'1
331:UO s,mmo

;O:S.Wd 9-100JrlOZ
(]N'ltlA~'\fW .:lOJOill,lSIO
HmO:ll:.lH:l1SHl'S'O

0311.:V.

2