Adams v. BRG Sports, Inc.

MARK ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRG SPORTS, INC., et al., Defendants.

FREDDIE ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRG SPORTS, INC., et al., Defendants.

QUINCY BAKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRG SPORTS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 17 C 8544

Case No. 17 C 8972

Case No. 18 C 129

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

April 17, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:

The plaintiffs in these cases, all of whom played high school football, sued BRG Sports, Inc. and Riddell, Inc., which design, manufacture, and sell football helmets. These cases were transferred here from the Northern District of California, where the plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuits. Following transfer, the Court essentially treated the cases as if they had been consolidated here as a mass-tort multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding.

In a first amended "master complaint" containing allegations common to all plaintiffs and in individual "short-form complaints" with allegations specific to each individual plaintiff, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants' negligence (design defect and failure to warn) caused them to suffer brain and neurocognitive injuries. The Court, with the assistance of the parties, then selected a number of "bellwether" cases, in which full discovery, including expert discovery, would be taken. That process has been completed through the deadline for the plaintiffs to designate experts.

The defendants have filed several motions, including three motions to strike/exclude the report and testimony of the plaintiffs' only expert, Dr. Randall Benson, on various grounds and two motions for summary judgment on all of the bellwether plaintiffs' claims. In support of their motions, the defendants argue that the Court should strike and/or exclude Dr. Benson's expert testimony—which they describe as vague and conclusory—based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The defendants further contend that with or without Dr. Benson's expert testimony, the plaintiffs cannot prove the causation element of their claims, which has two aspects: general causation and specific causation. The defendants also argue that without this, no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiffs on any of their claims.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs' design defect claims but denies the motion on theplaintiffs' failure to warn claims.

Background

The following facts are undisputed except where otherwise noted. The plaintiffs are all former high school football players; some played college football, too. Many of them played in Texas and Iowa. There are eight bellwether plaintiffs: Todd Bradford, Simson Green, Jaquaries Johnson, Gregory Page, Michael Sterns, Ashton Whitby, Walker Whitehorn, and Jeffrey Wodka. Either Texas or Iowa substantive law applies to each of these plaintiff's claims. The defendants are two related business entities: BRG Sports, Inc. (BRG), formerly known as Riddell Sports Group, Inc., and Riddell, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of BRG. Both companies are involved in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of Riddell football helmets. For simplicity's sake, the Court will refer to the defendants collectively as Riddell.

Each plaintiff wore a Riddell helmet during the time period relevant to these lawsuits; some as early as 1975 and others as late as 2002 or even later. The purpose of a football helmet is to mitigate the risk of head injuries and ensure safety during game play. The National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE), formed in 1969, implemented football helmet safety standards in 1973; its standards cover Riddell helmets. The plaintiffs contend that as football players, they sustained various head injuries during game play—namely from blows to the head.

A. Riddell adds warning labels

Beginning in 1983 and until the late 1990s, Riddell affixed warning labels onto the back of their football helmets. The warning stated: "Do not use this helmet to strike an opponent. Such an action is against football rules and may cause severe brain orneck injury. Playing the game of football in itself can cause injury, and no helmet can prevent all such injuries." Am. Master Compl. ¶ 12 (dkt. no. 184). The plaintiffs contend that Riddell's warnings were insufficient and that a better warning would have prompted them to avoid playing football altogether, choose a safer helmet, or play football differently. Riddell disputes these contentions and says that without evidence of a causal link between the plaintiffs' alleged injuries and Riddell helmets, the adequacy of warnings do not matter.

B. Riddell introduces new Revolution helmet

In 2002, Riddell introduced a new product—the "Riddell Revolution Helmet"—which it claimed to be 31% safer than other helmets on the market. Am. Master Compl. ¶ 16. The plaintiffs contend that they suffered brain injuries caused by Riddell's football helmets—older Riddell products and the Revolution line of helmets—because these helmets did not adequately protect them against injuries from concussive and sub-concussive blows to the head. The design defects alleged by the plaintiffs include (1) padding liner systems that lacked newer, safer, and better energy absorbing materials; (2) substandard foams that did not reduce force to the forehead; (3) insufficiently thick padding; and (4) the lack of safer and better energy absorbing systems, such as air-filled chamber-based systems. Id. ¶ 17. The plaintiffs say that Riddell marketed all of their helmets as safe equipment that would protect football players—especially from concussions. Id. ¶ 18.

C. The plaintiffs' brain and neurocognitive injuries

Each of the plaintiffs claim to suffer from brain and neurocognitive injuries—namely mild traumatic brain injuries (MTBIs). MTBIs include concussions.

A concussion can cause temporary or permanent loss of normal brain function. The effects of a concussion may be mild, including headaches, lack of concentration, memory and judgment problems, coordination issues, and difficulty with balance. Significant effects of concussions include post-concussion syndrome (PCS), chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), and second impact syndrome (SIS). PCS symptoms include chronic headaches, fatigue, memory problems, fogginess, depression, impulse issues, and other physical, cognitive, and behavioral problems. CTE is a neurodegenerative disease caused by repetitive trauma to the brain; it eventually leads to dementia and other neurological disorders and can have other cognitive and behavioral effects. SIS occurs when an athlete who has sustained a concussion experiences another brain injury before recovering from the first concussion; it can cause serious head trauma or death.

During their depositions, each bellwether plaintiff testified about concussions they believe they sustained during game play as well as concussion diagnoses from medical professionals. Some bellwether plaintiffs relied on other evidence to indicate that they suffered concussions, such as deposition testimony from Green's mother and Johnson's mother; both of whom believe that their sons sustained concussions. Riddell contends that the mothers' deposition testimony is neither admissible nor sufficient to prove that they suffered concussions.

For some bellwether plaintiffs, the scope and existence of their long-term brain and neurocognitive injuries were only recently discovered. These plaintiffs experienced the neurocognitive effects of injuries only as recently as 2017. The plaintiffs contend that a better designed helmet would have prevented or lessened the severity of theirinjuries. Riddell does not dispute that the bellwether plaintiffs each wore a Riddell helmet at some point during their football careers, but it contends that the helmets did not cause the plaintiffs' injuries.

D. The plaintiffs' design defect theory

In an October 5, 2018 order on Riddell's motion to dismiss, the Court addressed the plaintiffs' burden of proof regarding their causation theory of liability. The Court explained that there are two aspects of causation. "The first is general causation, that is, whether the product or exposure has the capacity to cause the injury the plaintiff alleges. The second is specific causation, that is, whether the product or exposure in fact caused the plaintiff's injury. Both must be alleged." Order on Mot. to Dismiss at 6 (dkt. no. 182). In this order, the Court dismissed, with leave to amend, short-form complaints filed by the plaintiffs because they did not include any allegations regarding causation. The plaintiffs filed their first amended master complaint and second amended short-form complaints on November 2, 2018.

On May 27, 2019, the Court—with the parties' input—selected eight bellwether plaintiffs. The bellwether plaintiffs contend that they suffer from various medical problems resulting from head trauma they experienced playing football while wearing Riddell helmets, including memory loss, headaches, depression, irritability, aggression, attention and concentration issues, anxiety, and impulsiveness. They attribute this to the defective design of Riddell helmets and the lack of adequate warnings.

In August 2020, the plaintiffs designated Dr. Randall Benson as their lone expert on both general causation and specific causation. (Plaintiffs have a separate warnings expert.) Dr. Benson authored an expert report totaling ten pages. In relevant part, Dr.Benson opines:

It is my opinion that concussive and sub-concussive blows to the head suffered while playing tackle football can and do cause mTBI and other brain injuries cited by Plaintiff in this case. It is further my opinion that playing football and suffering these blows to the head while wearing a properly designed and

...