Stephanie Andrews, et al. v. Lands' End, Inc., et al.

With discovery still ongoing, the district judge, facing hundreds of injured plaintiffs and unable, as in MDLs, “to send these people home,” doubted plaintiffs’ sworn answers used by a causation expert, struck the expert, disregarded the treating physicians’ causation opinions, and granted summary judgment. The questions presented: When a district judge is annoyed by the number of plaintiffs, laments he is unable to send them to other districts, and, as Daubert gatekeeper, strikes an expert for relying on plaintiffs’ sworn medical history answers because the judge considers the answers unworthy of belief, is the judge subject to the inference that he abused his discretion? As to 174 of the plaintiffs before him, does a district judge deny them jury trial and due process rights by ignoring expert treating physicians’ opinions showing that material facts on causation are genuinely disputed? Did the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit err by failing to address petitioners’ arguments seeking remand to the district court for consideration of pending issues related to the multiple treating physicians’ causation opinions as expressed in the petitioners’ Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures? (i)