Jesse Cole Cochran v. The Brinkmann Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: June 9, 2010
• Docket: 09-16505
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 09-16505 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUNE 9, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 08-01790-CV-WSD-1

JESSE COLE COCHRAN, DANIELLE M. COCHRAN, individually and as next friends and natural guardians of their son, Austin Cochran,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

THE BRINKMANN CORPORATION,

Defendant- Third Party-Plaintiff- Appellee,

ROY COCHRAN, RENA COCHRAN,

Third Party-Defendants. ________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _________________________

(June 9, 2010)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Jesse Cole Cochran and Danielle M. Cochran appeal the grant of

summary judgment in favor of the Brinkmann Corporation on the Cochrans’

product liability claim. Appellants also appeal two other decisions of the district

court: (1) excluding the late-filed supplemental reports of appellants’ expert and

(2) ruling the affidavit of another expert, David Brani, to be non-admissible.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s exclusion of the

supplemental reports. Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors, Corp., 446 F.3d

1137, 1146-46 (11th Cir. 2006). We review the court’s determination that the

Brani affidavit was not admissible for abuse of discretion as well. GE v. Joiner,

522 U.S. 136, 138-39 (1997). Finally, we review the entry of summary judgment

de novo. Dietz v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 598 F.3d 812, 815 (11th Cir. 2010).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. There was no

abuse of discretion in the district court’s exclusion of the supplemental reports as

2 they were not timely filed and no adequate reason for the late filing was given.

Likewise, there was no abuse of discretion in excluding the Brani affidavit because

it was submitted solely to support the claims of the excluded late-filed reports.

Because, as the district court concluded, these two evidentiary rulings left

appellants with “no admissible evidence of alternative safer designs for the fryer in

this litigation” and “[p]laintiffs have failed to offer reliable, admissible expert

testimony or other evidence of an alternative design,” we can find no error in the

court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Brinkmann Corporation.

AFFIRMED.