Steve Stevenson v. Windmoeller & Hoelscher Corp.
40 F.4th 826 (7th Cir. 2022) (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court's decision not to appoint a neutral expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and such an appointment is intended to aid the court, not to fill a evidentiary gap in a party's case, especially when alternative funding mechanisms for partisan experts are available.
Facts:
- Steve Stevenson was employed by a commercial printing company.
- While moving a portable ladder to clean a component of a Primaflex printing press, manufactured by Windmoeller & Hoelscher Corporation, Stevenson was injured.
- The printing press measured 53 feet long and 17 feet high, and the ladder was one of two supplied with the machine, necessary to reach an upper-level printing plate.
- As Stevenson moved the ladder, it caught on a 10-foot cable of an operator pendant attached to the machine, causing him to twist and injure his left shoulder and back.
- Stevenson later required surgery for his injury.
- Stevenson contended that the design of the printing press, specifically the placement of the 10-foot cable near the access door, was defective and foreseeably led to his injury.
- Stevenson represented that he lacked the financial resources to employ his own expert, and his court-appointed pro bono counsel should not be required to advance such costs.
Procedural Posture:
- Steve Stevenson filed a product-liability suit against Windmoeller & Hoelscher Corporation on theories of negligence and strict liability in state court, which was subsequently removed to federal court.
- Stevenson’s original counsel withdrew, and Stevenson proceeded pro se for approximately 10 months until the district court appointed new counsel to represent him.
- After the close of fact discovery, Stevenson’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion asking the district court to appoint an engineering expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706.
- The district court denied Stevenson's initial Rule 706 motion without prejudice.
- Windmoeller filed a motion for summary judgment.
- Stevenson renewed his motion for the appointment of a neutral expert pursuant to Rule 706.
- The district court again denied Stevenson’s renewed Rule 706 motion, reasoning he sought an expert to support his case, not a neutral one, and noted his eligibility to seek reimbursement for expert fees under Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 83.40, stating it would revisit the issue if it later needed a neutral expert.
- Stevenson filed his summary judgment response without expert opinion.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Windmoeller, finding Stevenson had no expert opinion to support his theory of the case regarding the specialized industrial equipment and that his claims independently failed for lack of other evidence.
- Stevenson, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court’s decision denying his Rule 706 motion and the subsequent grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint a neutral expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706, which allegedly prejudiced the plaintiff by leading to summary judgment for lack of expert testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Rovner, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint a neutral expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706, because the purpose of a Rule 706 expert is to assist the court, not to provide partisan testimony for a party's case or to fill an evidentiary gap, particularly when a party has access to other means for securing expert testimony. The court reviews the denial of a Rule 706 motion solely for abuse of discretion, given the permissive language of the rule. A court-appointed expert serves the court's interests, for example, to resolve conflicting expert opinions, evaluate admissibility, address ambiguities, provide an independent viewpoint, or supply neglected expert guidance. Stevenson did not demonstrate that the district court's own consideration of the evidence or issues was hampered by the lack of an independent expert; rather, his case failed due to the absence of partisan expert opinion to support his claims. The court emphasized that Stevenson could not show prejudice because there was no way to know if a neutral expert would have supported his theory. The court noted that Stevenson had an alternative avenue to secure expert testimony through the Northern District of Illinois' Local Rule 83.40 and District Court Fund Regulations, which permit reimbursement or pre-payment of expert fees for indigent litigants, and he failed to utilize or adequately explore these options or request more time. Thus, the district court was not obligated to appoint an expert under Rule 706 to help Stevenson meet his burden of presenting evidence on summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinct roles of court-appointed neutral experts under Rule 706 and party-retained advocate experts. It reinforces that Rule 706 is a tool for judicial assistance, not a mechanism for indigent plaintiffs to overcome their burden of proof when specialized knowledge is required. Future litigants, particularly those proceeding with court-appointed counsel, are put on notice that they must actively explore and utilize available local court funds and procedures for securing expert testimony before seeking a Rule 706 appointment or appealing its denial. The ruling also underscores the high bar for demonstrating abuse of discretion in Rule 706 decisions, requiring a showing that the court's own ability to understand the case was impeded, rather than simply that a party's case lacked necessary expert support.
