John Eichin underwent a surgical procedure that required use of several surgical staplers, including one to create an anastomosis that later leaked. In October 2021, he filed this products liability suit against surgical stapler manufacturers. In November 2023, the district court issued its fifth scheduling order, extending Eichin’s expert disclosure deadline to March 15, 2024. After Eichin failed to disclose any experts by that deadline, Defendants moved for summary judgment. On April 4, twenty days after his expert disclosure was due, Eichin moved to amend the scheduling order to extend that deadline. The district court denied Eichin’s motion, finding that he failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard, and granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding Eichin’s failure to proffer expert testimony fatal to his claims. Eichin appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to amend and entry of summary judgment.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated in its April 17, 2026 Opinion: “The district court appropriately determined that Eichin failed to demonstrate diligence. After discovery began in March 2022, the court extended Eichin’s expert disclosure deadline several times, including the November 2023 extension to March 15, 2024. In January 2024, the parties deposed Eichin’s treating surgeon, who testified about the staplers he used during the procedure. Notably, the scheduling order required Eichin to identify all evidence related to product identification of the stapler at issue by February 15, 2024, but he did not serve discovery requests on Defendants until February 16, and
Defendants timely responded to those requests on March 18. On April 4—twenty days after his March 15 expert disclosure deadline—Eichin moved to extend that deadline. We agree with the district court that “[t]he timeline here does not show that the schedule could not be met despite the diligence of [Eichin].” Eichin v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-03274-JD, 2024 WL 4564611, at *6 (D.S.C. Oct. 24, 2024).”
“We agree with the district court that Eichin’s arguments “do not demonstrate diligence” and instead, “simply frame the fact that [he] waited almost four months from his December receipt of the identity of the Stapler to pursue this amendment, and [he] did so [twenty] days after the materials he seeks to obtain were due.” Id. As of October 24,
2024, when the district court ruled on Eichin’s motion, the deadline to challenge the sufficiency of Defendants’ discovery responses had passed, no motion to compel was before the district court, and Eichin “ha[d] still not informed the [c]ourt of a retained expert or sought leave to file a written report by an expert.””
“We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Eichin’s motion to amend the scheduling order. Eichin does not advance any independent arguments challenging the district court’s grant of summary judgment, and his counsel conceded during oral argument that the absence of expert evidence is fatal to his claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”
Source Eichin v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC, No. 25-1659.
If you or a loved one suffered serious harm (or worse) as a result of a defective medical device in the United States, you should promptly find a defective medical device lawyer in your state who may investigate your medical device claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a defective medical device case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical device attorneys in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
