Philip Petrone and other plaintiffs sued Werner Enterprises, Inc. and Drivers Management, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, raising claims of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Nebraska law regarding compensation during a student-driver training program. The district court initially awarded damages to the plaintiffs after a jury trial, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated that judgment and remanded the case. The district court then granted summary judgment for the defendants, which the Eighth Circuit again vacated and remanded. On the second remand, the district court excluded the plaintiffs’ expert report, declined to appoint an independent expert, and entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Factual Overview:
The plaintiffs, commercial truck drivers, alleged they were not properly compensated for off-duty time spent on short rest breaks and time spent resting in their trucks’ sleeper-berths during an eight-week student-driver training program run by the defendants. After a jury trial, the plaintiffs were awarded $779,127 on their short-term break claims, while the defendants prevailed on the sleeper-berth claims.
The case has a complex procedural history, involving multiple appeals and remands. In the first appeal, the Eighth Circuit vacated the jury verdict because the district court improperly allowed the plaintiffs to submit an untimely expert report. On remand, the district court entered judgment for the defendants. In the second appeal, the Eighth Circuit vacated that judgment and remanded for the district court to analyze whether the expert report should be excluded as a discovery sanction and whether an independent expert should be appointed.
On the second remand, the district court excluded the plaintiffs’ expert report as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), declined to appoint an independent expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706, and entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.
Legal Analysis:
Timeliness of Appeal
The court first addressed the defendants’ cross-appeal arguing that the plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was untimely. The court found that although the district court lacked authority to extend the deadline for filing a Rule 59 or Rule 60 motion, it did have the discretion to extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting this extension based on excusable neglect, and therefore the plaintiffs’ appeal was timely.
Exclusion of Expert Report: The court affirmed the district court’s decision to exclude the plaintiffs’ untimely expert report as a sanction under Rule 37(c)(1). The court found that the district court properly analyzed whether the late disclosure was substantially justified or harmless, and appropriately considered the factors for determining the appropriate sanction. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ various arguments challenging the district court’s analysis.
Appointment of Independent Expert: The court upheld the district court’s decision not to appoint an independent expert under Rule 706. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there were no extraordinary or compelling circumstances warranting such an appointment, particularly given that the need for an expert arose from the plaintiffs’ own failure to make a timely disclosure.
Entry of Judgment: The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the district court erred in entering judgment for the defendants sua sponte. The court noted that this was not a summary judgment proceeding requiring notice under Rule 56(f), but rather a logical consequence of the exclusion of the expert report, which left the plaintiffs unable to prove damages.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the district court did not err in excluding the plaintiffs’ expert report, declining to appoint an independent expert, or entering judgment for the defendants.
Schrag on Law 