NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 22-SEP-2025 07:56 AM Dkt. 174 MO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
GERARDO DENNIS PATRICKSON; BENIGNO TORRES HERNANDEZ; FERNANDO JIMENEZ ARIAS; ELIAS ESPINOSA MERELO; ALIRIO MANUEL MENDEZ; and CARLOS HUMBERTO RIVERA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff- Appellee, DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY; SHELL OIL COMPANY; DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, (individually and as successor to Occidental Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical Agricultural Products, Inc., Hooker Chemical and Plastics, Occidental Chemical Company of Texas and Best Fertilizer Company); STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY; STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC.; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (HAWAI‘I) INC. (previously incorrectly named as Del Monte Fresh Produce Hawai‘i, Inc.), Defendants-Appellees, and DEAD SEA BROMINE CO, LTD.; BROMINE COMPOUNDS, LIMITED, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; and DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CC071000047)
MEMORANDUM OPINION (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.) NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Plaintiffs-Appellants Gerardo Dennis Patrickson
(Patrickson), Benigno Torres Hernandez (Torres Hernandez),
Fernando Jimenez Arias (Arias),1 Alirio Manuel Mendez (Mendez),
and Carlos Humberto Rivera (Rivera) (collectively, the
Plaintiffs)2 appeal from the September 14, 2022 Final Judgment
filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).3
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee is Dole Food Company,
Inc.; Defendants-Appellees are Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Shell
Oil Company, Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical
Corporation, Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and
Steamship Company, Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., and Del
Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc. (collectively, the
Defendants).4
I. Background
The Plaintiffs are from Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama,
and Ecuador; they allege injuries caused by exposure to the
1 Arias is also referenced in the parties' briefs as "Jimenez," "Jimenez Arias," and "Jimenez-Arias." For consistency, this memorandum opinion will refer to him as Arias.
2 Plaintiff Elias Espinoza Merelo, who is deceased, was dismissed from the case below, and his claims will not be discussed herein.
3 The Honorable Gary W.B. Chang presided.
4 Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Standard Fruit Company, and Standard Fruit and Steamship Company are collectively referred to as the Dole Defendants. Shell Oil Company is referred to as Shell. Dow Chemical Company is referred to as Dow. Occidental Chemical Corporation is referred to as Occidental. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., and Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc. are collectively referred to as the Del Monte Defendants.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
chemical pesticide dibromochloropropane (DBCP) in their home
countries. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were
either the Plaintiffs' employers, or manufacturers or
distributors of DBCP, and were therefore responsible for the
Plaintiffs' exposure to DBCP.
The Plaintiffs' litigation commenced in 1997. The
Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaiʻi. The case was remanded to the
circuit court in 2015.5
The following procedural history is relevant to the
present appeal. On May 3, 2019, the circuit court issued a case
management order (CMO) that set trial for the week beginning
September 21, 2020. The CMO set the "[w]indow of time to
complete [the P]laintiffs' depositions" as September 1, 2019
through November 1, 2019. The discovery cut-off date was set
for June 2, 2020. The Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed that the
Plaintiffs would appear for medical examinations in Houston,
Texas, and that the Plaintiffs would be deposed in Houston. The
circuit court issued an order, dated May 6, 2019, that "allowed"
the Plaintiffs to travel to Houston "for purposes of medical
5 The extensive procedural history of this case, prior to the 2015 remand to the circuit court, is set forth in Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2001), Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003), Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., No. 30700, 2014 WL 895186 (Haw. App. Mar. 7, 2014) (mem. op.), and Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 137 Hawaiʻi 217, 368 P.3d 959 (2015).
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
examinations and depositions, and to expedite the issuance of
any necessary travel visas for those Plaintiffs."
Dow's counsel agreed to calendar the Plaintiffs'
depositions for the week of October 28 to November 1, 2019, the
last week allowed under the circuit court's CMO, in order "to
accommodate [the] Plaintiffs' counsel's schedule." Torres
Hernandez, Rivera, and Mendez failed to appear for their
depositions in Houston. As a sanction, the circuit court
entered its March 24, 2020 order (sanction order) "striking
[Torres Hernandez, Rivera, and Mendez] as witnesses, as well as
any other evidence or testimony that is in any way dependent
upon statements by or from [these] plaintiffs."
The circuit court disposed of the Plaintiffs' claims
as follows:
A. Patrickson's Claims
Patrickson filed claims against all Defendants. On
December 31, 2020, Patrickson filed a motion for partial summary
judgment6 to preclude the Defendants' "payment and release
affirmative defense."7 On January 20, 2021, the Dole Defendants
6 Motion for summary judgment is abbreviated to MSJ in this opinion.
7 Patrickson admitted that, in 2006, he signed a document releasing the Costa Rican National Insurance Institute (NII) from liability "for the suffering [of Patrickson] caused by exposure to chemicals known by the acronym DBCP while [Patrickson] worked in the banana farms during the time between the years 1967-1979," in exchange for 683,000 colones, the equivalent of $1,200 in U.S. currency at the time.
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
filed a cross-MSJ as to Patrickson's claims, based on the
payment and release defense. The Dole Defendants' payment and
release defense asserted that the NII payment "bars Patrickson's
claims in full." Occidental, Dow, Shell, and the Del Monte
Defendants joined the Dole Defendants' cross-MSJ.
On March 8, 2021, the circuit court entered an order
denying Patrickson's MSJ on the Defendants' payment and release
defense. On the same day, the circuit court entered an order
granting Occidental, Dow, Shell, and the Del Monte Defendants'
joinder to the Dole Defendants' cross-MSJ, and granted summary
judgment in favor of the joining defendants. On June 7, 2021,
the circuit court entered an order granting summary judgment in
favor of the Dole Defendants as to Patrickson's claims, thereby
disposing of Patrickson's claims in this action.
B. Torres Hernandez's Claims
Torres Hernandez filed claims against all Defendants.
On April 29, 2021, Torres Hernandez stipulated to the dismissal
with prejudice of his claims against Dow and the Del Monte
Defendants. On the same day, the Dole Defendants filed an MSJ
as to Torres Hernandez's claims, which Shell joined. Torres
Hernandez stipulated to dismissing his claims against Occidental
without prejudice on August 12, 2021. On October 6, 2021, the
circuit court entered an order granting the Dole Defendants' MSJ
as to Torres Hernandez. The following day, the circuit court
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
granted Shell's substantive joinder in the Dole Defendants' MSJ,
thereby fully disposing of Torres Hernandez's claims.
C. Arias' Claims
Arias filed claims against all Defendants. Arias
stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of his claims against
the Dole Defendants on May 13, 2021, and to the dismissal
without prejudice of his claims against Occidental on August 12,
2021. On May 13, 2021, Shell filed an MSJ as to Mendez, Rivera,
and Arias' claims. The Plaintiffs' June 16, 2021 memorandum in
opposition to Shell's MSJ represented that Arias "[did] not
oppose summary judgment as to [Arias'] claims against Shell."
The circuit court entered its October 7, 2021 order granting
summary judgment in favor of Shell and against Arias. On
December 22, 2021, Dow filed an MSJ as to Arias' claims, which
the Del Monte Defendants joined. On February 27, 2022, Arias
stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of all of his claims
against Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc. On May 6, 2022,
the circuit court granted the MSJ and joinder in favor of Dow
and Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., thereby disposing of
Arias' remaining claims.
D. Mendez's Claims
Mendez filed claims against the Del Monte Defendants,
Dow, Shell, and Occidental. Mendez did not file a claim against
the Dole Defendants, and he stipulated to the dismissal without
6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
prejudice of his claims against Occidental on September 22,
2021. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of
Shell and against Mendez, among others, on October 7, 2021. On
January 19, 2022, the Del Monte Defendants filed an MSJ as to
Mendez's claims, which Dow joined. On February 27, 2022, Mendez
stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of all of his claims
against Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc. The circuit court
subsequently granted the MSJ and joinder in favor of Del Monte
Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. and Dow, thereby fully disposing of
Mendez's claims.
E. Rivera's Claims
Rivera filed claims against the Del Monte Defendants,
Dow, Shell, and Occidental. Rivera did not file a claim against
the Dole Defendants, and stipulated to the dismissal without
Shell and against Rivera, among others, on October 7, 2021. On
January 19, 2022, the Del Monte Defendants filed an MSJ as to
Rivera's claims, which Dow joined. On February 27, 2022, Rivera
stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of all of his claims
against Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc. The circuit court
subsequently granted the MSJ and joinder in favor of Del Monte
Rivera's claims.
7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
F. Final Judgment
On September 14, 2022, the circuit court entered its
Final Judgment in favor of all Defendants against all the
Plaintiffs, incorporating the orders and stipulations referenced
supra. The Final Judgment stated that joinders to motions filed
below were "ruled upon in the same or similar fashion as the
underlying motions."
II. Points of Error
A. Points of Error A and C.
Plaintiffs' point of error A contends that the circuit
court erred in granting the Defendants' motion to apply foreign
law to the Plaintiffs' "intentional tort" claim, which the
Plaintiffs clarified to be a fraud claim. Plaintiffs' point of
error C contends that the circuit court erred in ruling, through
an October 8, 2020 minute order, that foreign law would apply to
the Defendants' payment and release defense. The Plaintiffs do
not present any argument on these points, and therefore, these
points of error are waived on appeal. See Hawaiʻi Rules of
Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued may
be deemed waived."); Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114
Hawaiʻi 438, 478, 164 P.3d 696, 736 (2007) (holding that the
"court is not obliged to address matters for which the appellant
has failed to present discernible arguments").
8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
B. Point of Error B.
Plaintiffs' point of error B contends that the circuit
court erred in entering its March 24, 2020 sanction order
striking Torres Hernandez, Mendez, and Rivera as witnesses, "as
well as any other evidence or testimony that is in any way
dependent upon [their] statements." Sanctions for discovery
violations or abuses, including the striking of witnesses, are
reviewed for abuse of discretion. Weinberg v. Dickson-Weinberg,
123 Hawaiʻi 68, 71, 229 P.3d 1133, 1136 (2010).
The record reflects that only the Dole Defendants
objected to an extension. Dow, Occidental, Shell, and the Del
Monte Defendants all agreed, in fact, to reschedule the
depositions for the Plaintiffs to a date no later than December
13, 2019. And because the discovery cut-off at the time was
June 2, 2020, there was little risk of prejudice to the
Defendants in extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs'
depositions.
Moreover, the reasons the Plaintiffs offered for their
inability to meet the November 1, 2019 deposition deadline
(e.g., medical issues, an employer's unwillingness to allow time
off for the deposition, and counsel's loss of contact with
Mendez and Rivera due to their remote location) did not display
evidence of bad faith. Plaintiffs' counsel offered to make the
9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Plaintiffs available for depositions in their home countries,
via telephone or other remote electronic means.
We therefore conclude that the circuit court abused
its discretion in striking Torres Hernandez, Mendez, and Rivera
as witnesses, and by excluding any evidence or testimony
dependent upon their statements.
C. Points of Error D and E.
Plaintiffs' points of error D and E contend that the
circuit court erred in denying their motion for partial summary
judgment on the Defendants' payment and release defense and the
corresponding grant of summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants on Patrickson's claims.
"On appeal, the grant or denial of summary judgment is
reviewed de novo." Ralston v. Yim, 129 Hawaiʻi 46, 55, 292 P.3d
1276, 1285 (2013) (citation omitted). The court applies the
following standard,
[S]ummary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In other words, we must view all of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.
Id. at 55-56, 292 P.3d at 1285-86 (citation omitted).
10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
In 2006, Patrickson signed a document releasing the
NII in exchange for monetary compensation he received under
Costa Rica Law 8130. Pursuant to Costa Rican law, employers
must provide employees with workers' compensation insurance, and
the insurance is administered by the NII. The Plaintiffs and
Defendants agree that the payments provided by Costa Rica Law
8130 are outside of and separate from Costa Rica's workers'
compensation scheme, and that Costa Rican law does not permit
double recovery of damages. The Plaintiffs and Defendants
disagree, however, as to how Costa Rican courts would interpret
the language in Patrickson's release.
Patrickson's release stated, in pertinent part:
The undersigned, [Patrickson], . . . hereby certify that I have received from the Occupational Hazard Department of the [NII] the sum of ȼ683,000.00 (SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND COLONES) as payment of the compensation agreed to between the undersigned, CONATRAB and the NII. This compensation is for the suffering caused by exposure to chemicals known by the acronym DBCP while I worked in the banana farms during the time between the years 1967-1979. This payment has been determined by means of a percentage as the result of an agreement between the NII's Medical Commission and CONATRAB. With the aforementioned sum I deem myself to be completely satisfied and compensated and thus discharge the NII of any present or future liability related to this claim. Furthermore, from this moment I am committed to not filing and/or withdrawing any administrative or legal claim against the NII, related to the suffering compensated herein. That is all. In agreement hereof I sign in the city of San Jose, at the headquarters of the [NII], at twelve hours and thirty minutes of September twelve of Two Thousand Six.
(Emphasis added.)
The Defendants submitted sworn statements of their
experts, Anabelle León Feoli (Feoli) and Víctor Garita (Garita),
11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
in support of their MSJ. Feoli and Garita opined that
Patrickson's release, namely his statement that "I deem myself
to be completely satisfied," effectively "extinguished" his
claims against all other parties. Patrickson's expert Alejandro
M. Garro (Garro), however, interpreted "the plain text of the
Patrickson Release, construed in light of the principles and
rules of Costa Rican law" as "intended to discharge the [NII]
from all liability, and the [NII] only, that is, in relation
only to [Patrickson's] compensation claim against the [NII]."
Pursuant to Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)
Rule 44.1, a court's determination of foreign law "shall be
treated as a ruling on a question of law." Therefore, we review
the circuit court's interpretation of foreign law de novo. See
Mikelson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 107 Hawaiʻi 192, 197, 111
P.3d 601, 606 (2005).
Here, we conclude that the circuit court was wrong in
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on
the Defendants' payment and release defense, and in granting
summary judgment for the Defendants as to Patrickson's claims.
Pursuant to the plain language of the release, Patrickson
expressly and only "discharge[d] the NII of any present or
future liability related to this claim." (Emphasis added.)
Moreover, the Defendants offered no legal argument,
beyond the conclusory statements of their experts, to support
12 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
their claims that, under Costa Rican law, Patrickson's release
bars actions against third parties such as the Defendants.
These statements, without more, appear inconsistent with the
Costa Rican Supreme Court's acknowledgement that settlements
pursuant to Costa Rica Law 8130 do not automatically bar
plaintiffs from bringing additional claims for compensation.
We therefore vacate the circuit court's June 7, 2021
order granting summary judgment to the Dole Defendants as to
Patrickson's claims, and the March 8, 2021 orders denying
Patrickson's motion for partial summary judgment, and granting
Occidental, Shell, Dow, and the Del Monte Defendants'
substantive joinder in the Dole Defendants' MSJ.
D. Point of Error F.
Plaintiffs' point of error F contends that the circuit
court erred in entering its October 6, 2021 order granting the
Dole Defendants' MSJ as to Torres Hernandez's claims.
As discussed supra, the circuit court erred in its
sanction order striking Torres Hernandez's testimony and
preventing Torres Hernandez from introducing evidence or
testimony based on his statements. The October 6, 2021 order is
therefore vacated.
E. Points of Error G and I.
Plaintiffs' point of error G contends that the circuit
court erred in entering its October 7, 2021 order granting
13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Shell's MSJ as to Mendez, Rivera, and Arias' claims.
Plaintiffs' point of error I contends that the circuit court
erred in entering its April 4, 2022 order granting the Del Monte
Defendants' MSJ as to Mendez and Rivera's claims, and in
entering its May 6, 2022 order granting Dow's MSJ as to Arias.
As discussed supra, the circuit court erred in
entering its sanction order that prevented Mendez and Rivera
from submitting their testimony or any evidence based on their
statements. The October 7, 2021 and April 4, 2022 orders must
therefore be vacated as to Mendez and Rivera.
Arias, who appeared for depositions, introduced
excerpts from his deposition transcript. We determine that
Arias' deposition testimony raises genuine issues of material
fact as to his alleged exposure to DBCP while working six to
seven days a week for over two years on the Del Monte
Defendants' plantations, and the adverse effects of this alleged
exposure on his health. We therefore vacate the May 6, 2022
order as to Arias.
We further conclude, however, that Arias' expressed
non-opposition to Shell's MSJ precludes Arias from challenging
the October 7, 2021 order on appeal. We therefore affirm the
October 7, 2021 order as to Arias.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the October 7,
2021 order in part, as to Mendez and Rivera, and affirm in part,
14 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
as to Arias. We vacate the April 4, 2022 and May 6, 2022 orders
as to Mendez, Rivera, and Arias.8
F. Point of Error H.
Plaintiffs' point of error H contends that the circuit
court erred in entering its October 15, 2021 order granting Dow
and the Dole Defendants' motion to exclude the report and
testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert David Sullivan (Sullivan).
The Plaintiffs' opening brief fails to make any argument
regarding the exclusion of Sullivan's opinions. Pursuant to
HRAP Rule 28(b)(7), Plaintiffs' point of error H is therefore
waived.
G. Point of Error J.
Plaintiffs' point of error J contends that the circuit
court erred in its April 25, 2022 order denying Mendez and
Rivera's motion to sever and abate their claims until the
lifting of COVID-19 travel restrictions. Mendez and Rivera
filed the motion to sever and abate on February 15, 2022,
concurrently with their memorandum in opposition to the Del
Monte Defendants' MSJ as to Mendez and Rivera's claims. Mendez
and Rivera sought to sever and abate their claims so that,
following the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions, they could
8 We vacate the circuit court's dismissal of Mendez, Rivera, and Arias' claims only as to Dow and Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc; Mendez, Rivera, and Arias stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of all of their claims against Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc.
15 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
develop evidence to oppose the Del Monte Defendants' MSJ and
Dow's joinder. Plaintiffs' point of error J is moot in light of
our vacatur of the circuit court's April 4, 2022 order granting
the Del Monte Defendants' MSJ as to Mendez and Rivera.
H. Point of Error K.
Plaintiffs' point of error K contends that the circuit
court erred in entering its May 6, 2022 order granting Dow's
motion to exclude the report and testimony of the Plaintiffs'
toxicology expert Michael DiBartolomeis (DiBartolomeis).
DiBartolomeis' report and testimony relate to Arias, and opines
that Arias' DBCP exposure was responsible for Arias' infertility
and his wife's miscarriages. In excluding DiBartolomeis'
testimony, the circuit court found that "[t]here [was] an
absence of evidence in the record of [Arias'] exposure to DBCP."
In Section II.E., supra, we concluded that Arias'
deposition testimony raises genuine issues of material fact as
to his alleged exposure to DBCP while working six to seven days
a week for over two years on the Del Monte Defendants'
plantations, and the adverse effects of this alleged exposure on
his health. We therefore vacate the circuit court's May 6, 2022
order.
I. Point of Error L.
Plaintiffs' point of error L contends that the circuit
court erred in entering its May 6, 2022 order excluding the
16 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
report and testimony of the Plaintiffs' air modeling expert
Andrew Gray (Gray).
Under HRCP Rule 37(b)(2)(B), a court may impose
sanctions, including prohibiting the introduction of matters
into evidence, for failing to comply with an order regarding
discovery. A trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert
testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Tabieros v.
Clark Equip. Co., 85 Hawaiʻi 336, 391, 944 P.2d 1279, 1334
(1997). We determine that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion in finding that Gray's report was untimely.
On January 9, 2020, the Plaintiffs identified specific
expert witness reports that they stipulated would be due either
by January 15, 2020 or by January 29, 2020. On June 23, 2021,
the parties expressly stipulated as to a new pretrial deadline
of October 15, 2021 with specific regard to "Plaintiffs' legal
causation and damages witnesses including expert reports and
supplemental expert reports based on newly developed evidence
for Plaintiffs [Arias], Torres [Hernandez], Mendez, and Rivera."
The Plaintiffs represent that they produced Gray's
report on October 15, 2021. The report was not based on newly
discovered evidence relating to Arias, Torres Hernandez, Mendez,
and Rivera. Gray instead relied on prior findings and reports
from other experts, including Sullivan, the Plaintiffs' expert,
17 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
and Charles Faust, the Defendants' expert. Thus, the October
15, 2021 deadline did not apply to Gray's report.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Gray's
testimony, and we affirm the circuit court's May 6, 2022 order.
J. Point of Error M.
Plaintiffs' point of error M contends that the circuit
court erred in entering its July 22, 2021 minute order granting
Dow's motion for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
punitive damages claim. The circuit court's minute order is not
appealable. See Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88
Hawaiʻi 319, 321 n.3, 966 P.2d 631, 633 n.3 (1998). We therefore
do not consider this point of error.
III. Conclusion
We affirm in part and vacate in part the circuit
court's Final Judgment, and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this memorandum opinion.9
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, September 22, 2025.
On the briefs: Keith M. Kiuchi, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Scott M. Hendler (pro hac Chief Judge vice) (Hendler Flores Law, PLLC), /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Associate Judge
9 Pursuant to HRAP Rule 34(c), Plaintiffs-Appellants' July 11, 2025 Motion for Retention of Oral Argument is denied.
18 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Melvyn M. Miyagi, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry for Defendant/Third-Party Associate Judge Plaintiff-Appellee Dole Food Company, Inc., and for Defendants-Appellees Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Standard Fruit Company, and Standard Fruit and Steamship Company.
David W.H. Chee, for Defendants-Appellees Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. and Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc.
Steven L. Goto, for Defendant-Appellee Dow Chemical Company.
Wendell H. Fuji, for Defendant-Appellee Shell Oil Company.