Cleaveland v. Home Depot USA, Inc.

── Cleaveland v. Home Depot USA, Inc. ── Case No.: 25-1582 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 02, 2026 Category: General 25-1582-cv Cleaveland v. Home Depot USA, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 2nd day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., STEVEN J. MENASHI, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSHUA CLEAVELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 25-1582-cv HOME DEPOT USA, INC., TRICAM INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1  FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: JACK G. STEIGELFEST, Howard, Kohn, Sprague & FitzGerald LLP, Hartford, CT FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: JONATHAN R. SICHTERMANN, Parsky & Galloway, LLC, Chicago, IL Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Sarala V. Nagala, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Joshua Cleaveland appeals from the June 10, 2025 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Nagala, J.) granting the motions by the Defendants, Home Depot USA, Inc. and Tricam Industries, Inc., to exclude the testimony of Cleaveland’s expert, Dr. Jonathan Slocum, and for summary judgment. Cleaveland also challenges the District Court’s order denying his motion for leave to supplement his expert report. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. Cleaveland was injured after falling off a Tricam Model GLX-5B ladder (the “Tricam ladder”) that had been manufactured and sold by the Defendants. Cleaveland originally sued in state court under the Connecticut Product Liability 2 Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m et seq., and the Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. In November 2024, one month after the close of all discovery, Cleaveland moved for leave to supplement the initial report of his expert, Dr. Slocum. The District Court denied the motion. In June 2025 the District Court granted the Defendants’ motions to exclude Dr. Slocum’s initial expert report and for summary judgment. I. Motion to Supplement Cleaveland first argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion to supplement Dr. Slocum’s expert report. In excluding the untimely supplemental report, the District Court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), which provides that