CourtListener 10675589

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
22-SEP-2025
07:56 AM
Dkt. 174 MO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

GERARDO DENNIS PATRICKSON; BENIGNO TORRES HERNANDEZ; FERNANDO
JIMENEZ ARIAS; ELIAS ESPINOSA MERELO; ALIRIO MANUEL MENDEZ; and
CARLOS HUMBERTO RIVERA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-
Appellee, DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY; SHELL OIL COMPANY; DOW
CHEMICAL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, (individually
and as successor to Occidental Chemical Company and Occidental
Chemical Agricultural Products, Inc., Hooker Chemical and
Plastics, Occidental Chemical Company of Texas and Best
Fertilizer Company); STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY; STANDARD FRUIT AND
STEAMSHIP COMPANY; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC.; DEL MONTE
FRESH PRODUCE (HAWAI‘I) INC. (previously incorrectly named as Del
Monte Fresh Produce Hawai‘i, Inc.), Defendants-Appellees, and
DEAD SEA BROMINE CO, LTD.; BROMINE COMPOUNDS, LIMITED,
Third-Party Defendants-Appellees,
and
JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; and DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC071000047)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Plaintiffs-Appellants Gerardo Dennis Patrickson

(Patrickson), Benigno Torres Hernandez (Torres Hernandez),

Fernando Jimenez Arias (Arias),1 Alirio Manuel Mendez (Mendez),

and Carlos Humberto Rivera (Rivera) (collectively, the

Plaintiffs)2 appeal from the September 14, 2022 Final Judgment

filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).3

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee is Dole Food Company,

Inc.; Defendants-Appellees are Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Shell

Oil Company, Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical

Corporation, Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and

Steamship Company, Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., and Del

Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc. (collectively, the

Defendants).4

I. Background

The Plaintiffs are from Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama,

and Ecuador; they allege injuries caused by exposure to the

1 Arias is also referenced in the parties' briefs as "Jimenez,"
"Jimenez Arias," and "Jimenez-Arias." For consistency, this memorandum
opinion will refer to him as Arias.

2 Plaintiff Elias Espinoza Merelo, who is deceased, was dismissed
from the case below, and his claims will not be discussed herein.

3 The Honorable Gary W.B. Chang presided.

4 Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Standard Fruit
Company, and Standard Fruit and Steamship Company are collectively referred
to as the Dole Defendants. Shell Oil Company is referred to as Shell. Dow
Chemical Company is referred to as Dow. Occidental Chemical Corporation is
referred to as Occidental. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., and Del Monte
Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc. are collectively referred to as the Del Monte
Defendants.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

chemical pesticide dibromochloropropane (DBCP) in their home

countries. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were

either the Plaintiffs' employers, or manufacturers or

distributors of DBCP, and were therefore responsible for the

Plaintiffs' exposure to DBCP.

The Plaintiffs' litigation commenced in 1997. The

Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaiʻi. The case was remanded to the

circuit court in 2015.5

The following procedural history is relevant to the

present appeal. On May 3, 2019, the circuit court issued a case

management order (CMO) that set trial for the week beginning

September 21, 2020. The CMO set the "[w]indow of time to

complete [the P]laintiffs' depositions" as September 1, 2019

through November 1, 2019. The discovery cut-off date was set

for June 2, 2020. The Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed that the

Plaintiffs would appear for medical examinations in Houston,

Texas, and that the Plaintiffs would be deposed in Houston. The

circuit court issued an order, dated May 6, 2019, that "allowed"

the Plaintiffs to travel to Houston "for purposes of medical

5 The extensive procedural history of this case, prior to the 2015
remand to the circuit court, is set forth in Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251
F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2001), Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003),
Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., No. 30700, 2014 WL 895186 (Haw. App. Mar. 7,
2014) (mem. op.), and Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 137 Hawaiʻi 217, 368 P.3d
959 (2015).

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

examinations and depositions, and to expedite the issuance of

any necessary travel visas for those Plaintiffs."

Dow's counsel agreed to calendar the Plaintiffs'

depositions for the week of October 28 to November 1, 2019, the

last week allowed under the circuit court's CMO, in order "to

accommodate [the] Plaintiffs' counsel's schedule." Torres

Hernandez, Rivera, and Mendez failed to appear for their

depositions in Houston. As a sanction, the circuit court

entered its March 24, 2020 order (sanction order) "striking

[Torres Hernandez, Rivera, and Mendez] as witnesses, as well as

any other evidence or testimony that is in any way dependent

upon statements by or from [these] plaintiffs."

The circuit court disposed of the Plaintiffs' claims

as follows:

A. Patrickson's Claims

Patrickson filed claims against all Defendants. On

December 31, 2020, Patrickson filed a motion for partial summary

judgment6 to preclude the Defendants' "payment and release

affirmative defense."7 On January 20, 2021, the Dole Defendants

6 Motion for summary judgment is abbreviated to MSJ in this
opinion.

7 Patrickson admitted that, in 2006, he signed a document releasing
the Costa Rican National Insurance Institute (NII) from liability "for the
suffering [of Patrickson] caused by exposure to chemicals known by the
acronym DBCP while [Patrickson] worked in the banana farms during the time
between the years 1967-1979," in exchange for 683,000 colones, the equivalent
of $1,200 in U.S. currency at the time.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

filed a cross-MSJ as to Patrickson's claims, based on the

payment and release defense. The Dole Defendants' payment and

release defense asserted that the NII payment "bars Patrickson's

claims in full." Occidental, Dow, Shell, and the Del Monte

Defendants joined the Dole Defendants' cross-MSJ.

On March 8, 2021, the circuit court entered an order

denying Patrickson's MSJ on the Defendants' payment and release

defense. On the same day, the circuit court entered an order

granting Occidental, Dow, Shell, and the Del Monte Defendants'

joinder to the Dole Defendants' cross-MSJ, and granted summary

judgment in favor of the joining defendants. On June 7, 2021,

the circuit court entered an order granting summary judgment in

favor of the Dole Defendants as to Patrickson's claims, thereby

disposing of Patrickson's claims in this action.

B. Torres Hernandez's Claims

Torres Hernandez filed claims against all Defendants.

On April 29, 2021, Torres Hernandez stipulated to the dismissal

with prejudice of his claims against Dow and the Del Monte

Defendants. On the same day, the Dole Defendants filed an MSJ

as to Torres Hernandez's claims, which Shell joined. Torres

Hernandez stipulated to dismissing his claims against Occidental

without prejudice on August 12, 2021. On October 6, 2021, the

circuit court entered an order granting the Dole Defendants' MSJ

as to Torres Hernandez. The following day, the circuit court

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

granted Shell's substantive joinder in the Dole Defendants' MSJ,

thereby fully disposing of Torres Hernandez's claims.

C. Arias' Claims

Arias filed claims against all Defendants. Arias

stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of his claims against

the Dole Defendants on May 13, 2021, and to the dismissal

without prejudice of his claims against Occidental on August 12,

2021. On May 13, 2021, Shell filed an MSJ as to Mendez, Rivera,

and Arias' claims. The Plaintiffs' June 16, 2021 memorandum in

opposition to Shell's MSJ represented that Arias "[did] not

oppose summary judgment as to [Arias'] claims against Shell."

The circuit court entered its October 7, 2021 order granting

summary judgment in favor of Shell and against Arias. On

December 22, 2021, Dow filed an MSJ as to Arias' claims, which

the Del Monte Defendants joined. On February 27, 2022, Arias

stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of all of his claims

against Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc. On May 6, 2022,

the circuit court granted the MSJ and joinder in favor of Dow

and Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., thereby disposing of

Arias' remaining claims.

D. Mendez's Claims

Mendez filed claims against the Del Monte Defendants,

Dow, Shell, and Occidental. Mendez did not file a claim against

the Dole Defendants, and he stipulated to the dismissal without

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

prejudice of his claims against Occidental on September 22,

2021. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of

Shell and against Mendez, among others, on October 7, 2021. On

January 19, 2022, the Del Monte Defendants filed an MSJ as to

Mendez's claims, which Dow joined. On February 27, 2022, Mendez

stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of all of his claims

against Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc. The circuit court

subsequently granted the MSJ and joinder in favor of Del Monte

Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. and Dow, thereby fully disposing of

Mendez's claims.

E. Rivera's Claims

Rivera filed claims against the Del Monte Defendants,

Dow, Shell, and Occidental. Rivera did not file a claim against

the Dole Defendants, and stipulated to the dismissal without

prejudice of his claims against Occidental on September 22,

2021. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of

Shell and against Rivera, among others, on October 7, 2021. On

January 19, 2022, the Del Monte Defendants filed an MSJ as to

Rivera's claims, which Dow joined. On February 27, 2022, Rivera

stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of all of his claims

against Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc. The circuit court

subsequently granted the MSJ and joinder in favor of Del Monte

Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. and Dow, thereby fully disposing of

Rivera's claims.

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

F. Final Judgment

On September 14, 2022, the circuit court entered its

Final Judgment in favor of all Defendants against all the

Plaintiffs, incorporating the orders and stipulations referenced

supra. The Final Judgment stated that joinders to motions filed

below were "ruled upon in the same or similar fashion as the

underlying motions."

II. Points of Error

A. Points of Error A and C.

Plaintiffs' point of error A contends that the circuit

court erred in granting the Defendants' motion to apply foreign

law to the Plaintiffs' "intentional tort" claim, which the

Plaintiffs clarified to be a fraud claim. Plaintiffs' point of

error C contends that the circuit court erred in ruling, through

an October 8, 2020 minute order, that foreign law would apply to

the Defendants' payment and release defense. The Plaintiffs do

not present any argument on these points, and therefore, these

points of error are waived on appeal. See Hawaiʻi Rules of

Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued may

be deemed waived."); Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114

Hawaiʻi 438, 478, 164 P.3d 696, 736 (2007) (holding that the

"court is not obliged to address matters for which the appellant

has failed to present discernible arguments").

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

B. Point of Error B.

Plaintiffs' point of error B contends that the circuit

court erred in entering its March 24, 2020 sanction order

striking Torres Hernandez, Mendez, and Rivera as witnesses, "as

well as any other evidence or testimony that is in any way

dependent upon [their] statements." Sanctions for discovery

violations or abuses, including the striking of witnesses, are

reviewed for abuse of discretion. Weinberg v. Dickson-Weinberg,

123 Hawaiʻi 68, 71, 229 P.3d 1133, 1136 (2010).

The record reflects that only the Dole Defendants

objected to an extension. Dow, Occidental, Shell, and the Del

Monte Defendants all agreed, in fact, to reschedule the

depositions for the Plaintiffs to a date no later than December

13, 2019. And because the discovery cut-off at the time was

June 2, 2020, there was little risk of prejudice to the

Defendants in extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs'

depositions.

Moreover, the reasons the Plaintiffs offered for their

inability to meet the November 1, 2019 deposition deadline

(e.g., medical issues, an employer's unwillingness to allow time

off for the deposition, and counsel's loss of contact with

Mendez and Rivera due to their remote location) did not display

evidence of bad faith. Plaintiffs' counsel offered to make the

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Plaintiffs available for depositions in their home countries,

via telephone or other remote electronic means.

We therefore conclude that the circuit court abused

its discretion in striking Torres Hernandez, Mendez, and Rivera

as witnesses, and by excluding any evidence or testimony

dependent upon their statements.

C. Points of Error D and E.

Plaintiffs' points of error D and E contend that the

circuit court erred in denying their motion for partial summary

judgment on the Defendants' payment and release defense and the

corresponding grant of summary judgment in favor of the

Defendants on Patrickson's claims.

"On appeal, the grant or denial of summary judgment is

reviewed de novo." Ralston v. Yim, 129 Hawaiʻi 46, 55, 292 P.3d

1276, 1285 (2013) (citation omitted). The court applies the

following standard,

[S]ummary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A
fact is material if proof of that fact would have the
effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential
elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the
parties. The evidence must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. In other words, we must
view all of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in
the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

Id. at 55-56, 292 P.3d at 1285-86 (citation omitted).

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

In 2006, Patrickson signed a document releasing the

NII in exchange for monetary compensation he received under

Costa Rica Law 8130. Pursuant to Costa Rican law, employers

must provide employees with workers' compensation insurance, and

the insurance is administered by the NII. The Plaintiffs and

Defendants agree that the payments provided by Costa Rica Law

8130 are outside of and separate from Costa Rica's workers'

compensation scheme, and that Costa Rican law does not permit

double recovery of damages. The Plaintiffs and Defendants

disagree, however, as to how Costa Rican courts would interpret

the language in Patrickson's release.

Patrickson's release stated, in pertinent part:

The undersigned, [Patrickson], . . . hereby certify that I
have received from the Occupational Hazard Department of
the [NII] the sum of ȼ683,000.00 (SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE
THOUSAND COLONES) as payment of the compensation agreed to
between the undersigned, CONATRAB and the NII. This
compensation is for the suffering caused by exposure to
chemicals known by the acronym DBCP while I worked in the
banana farms during the time between the years 1967-1979.
This payment has been determined by means of a percentage
as the result of an agreement between the NII's Medical
Commission and CONATRAB. With the aforementioned sum I
deem myself to be completely satisfied and compensated and
thus discharge the NII of any present or future liability
related to this claim. Furthermore, from this moment I am
committed to not filing and/or withdrawing any
administrative or legal claim against the NII, related to
the suffering compensated herein. That is all. In
agreement hereof I sign in the city of San Jose, at the
headquarters of the [NII], at twelve hours and thirty
minutes of September twelve of Two Thousand Six.

(Emphasis added.)

The Defendants submitted sworn statements of their

experts, Anabelle León Feoli (Feoli) and Víctor Garita (Garita),

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

in support of their MSJ. Feoli and Garita opined that

Patrickson's release, namely his statement that "I deem myself

to be completely satisfied," effectively "extinguished" his

claims against all other parties. Patrickson's expert Alejandro

M. Garro (Garro), however, interpreted "the plain text of the

Patrickson Release, construed in light of the principles and

rules of Costa Rican law" as "intended to discharge the [NII]

from all liability, and the [NII] only, that is, in relation

only to [Patrickson's] compensation claim against the [NII]."

Pursuant to Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)

Rule 44.1, a court's determination of foreign law "shall be

treated as a ruling on a question of law." Therefore, we review

the circuit court's interpretation of foreign law de novo. See

Mikelson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 107 Hawaiʻi 192, 197, 111

P.3d 601, 606 (2005).

Here, we conclude that the circuit court was wrong in

denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on

the Defendants' payment and release defense, and in granting

summary judgment for the Defendants as to Patrickson's claims.

Pursuant to the plain language of the release, Patrickson

expressly and only "discharge[d] the NII of any present or

future liability related to this claim." (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, the Defendants offered no legal argument,

beyond the conclusory statements of their experts, to support

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

their claims that, under Costa Rican law, Patrickson's release

bars actions against third parties such as the Defendants.

These statements, without more, appear inconsistent with the

Costa Rican Supreme Court's acknowledgement that settlements

pursuant to Costa Rica Law 8130 do not automatically bar

plaintiffs from bringing additional claims for compensation.

We therefore vacate the circuit court's June 7, 2021

order granting summary judgment to the Dole Defendants as to

Patrickson's claims, and the March 8, 2021 orders denying

Patrickson's motion for partial summary judgment, and granting

Occidental, Shell, Dow, and the Del Monte Defendants'

substantive joinder in the Dole Defendants' MSJ.

D. Point of Error F.

Plaintiffs' point of error F contends that the circuit

court erred in entering its October 6, 2021 order granting the

Dole Defendants' MSJ as to Torres Hernandez's claims.

As discussed supra, the circuit court erred in its

sanction order striking Torres Hernandez's testimony and

preventing Torres Hernandez from introducing evidence or

testimony based on his statements. The October 6, 2021 order is

therefore vacated.

E. Points of Error G and I.

Plaintiffs' point of error G contends that the circuit

court erred in entering its October 7, 2021 order granting

13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Shell's MSJ as to Mendez, Rivera, and Arias' claims.

Plaintiffs' point of error I contends that the circuit court

erred in entering its April 4, 2022 order granting the Del Monte

Defendants' MSJ as to Mendez and Rivera's claims, and in

entering its May 6, 2022 order granting Dow's MSJ as to Arias.

As discussed supra, the circuit court erred in

entering its sanction order that prevented Mendez and Rivera

from submitting their testimony or any evidence based on their

statements. The October 7, 2021 and April 4, 2022 orders must

therefore be vacated as to Mendez and Rivera.

Arias, who appeared for depositions, introduced

excerpts from his deposition transcript. We determine that

Arias' deposition testimony raises genuine issues of material

fact as to his alleged exposure to DBCP while working six to

seven days a week for over two years on the Del Monte

Defendants' plantations, and the adverse effects of this alleged

exposure on his health. We therefore vacate the May 6, 2022

order as to Arias.

We further conclude, however, that Arias' expressed

non-opposition to Shell's MSJ precludes Arias from challenging

the October 7, 2021 order on appeal. We therefore affirm the

October 7, 2021 order as to Arias.

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the October 7,

2021 order in part, as to Mendez and Rivera, and affirm in part,

14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

as to Arias. We vacate the April 4, 2022 and May 6, 2022 orders

as to Mendez, Rivera, and Arias.8

F. Point of Error H.

Plaintiffs' point of error H contends that the circuit

court erred in entering its October 15, 2021 order granting Dow

and the Dole Defendants' motion to exclude the report and

testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert David Sullivan (Sullivan).

The Plaintiffs' opening brief fails to make any argument

regarding the exclusion of Sullivan's opinions. Pursuant to

HRAP Rule 28(b)(7), Plaintiffs' point of error H is therefore

waived.

G. Point of Error J.

Plaintiffs' point of error J contends that the circuit

court erred in its April 25, 2022 order denying Mendez and

Rivera's motion to sever and abate their claims until the

lifting of COVID-19 travel restrictions. Mendez and Rivera

filed the motion to sever and abate on February 15, 2022,

concurrently with their memorandum in opposition to the Del

Monte Defendants' MSJ as to Mendez and Rivera's claims. Mendez

and Rivera sought to sever and abate their claims so that,

following the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions, they could

8 We vacate the circuit court's dismissal of Mendez, Rivera, and
Arias' claims only as to Dow and Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc; Mendez,
Rivera, and Arias stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of all of their
claims against Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc.

15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

develop evidence to oppose the Del Monte Defendants' MSJ and

Dow's joinder. Plaintiffs' point of error J is moot in light of

our vacatur of the circuit court's April 4, 2022 order granting

the Del Monte Defendants' MSJ as to Mendez and Rivera.

H. Point of Error K.

Plaintiffs' point of error K contends that the circuit

court erred in entering its May 6, 2022 order granting Dow's

motion to exclude the report and testimony of the Plaintiffs'

toxicology expert Michael DiBartolomeis (DiBartolomeis).

DiBartolomeis' report and testimony relate to Arias, and opines

that Arias' DBCP exposure was responsible for Arias' infertility

and his wife's miscarriages. In excluding DiBartolomeis'

testimony, the circuit court found that "[t]here [was] an

absence of evidence in the record of [Arias'] exposure to DBCP."

In Section II.E., supra, we concluded that Arias'

deposition testimony raises genuine issues of material fact as

to his alleged exposure to DBCP while working six to seven days

a week for over two years on the Del Monte Defendants'

plantations, and the adverse effects of this alleged exposure on

his health. We therefore vacate the circuit court's May 6, 2022

order.

I. Point of Error L.

Plaintiffs' point of error L contends that the circuit

court erred in entering its May 6, 2022 order excluding the

16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

report and testimony of the Plaintiffs' air modeling expert

Andrew Gray (Gray).

Under HRCP Rule 37(b)(2)(B), a court may impose

sanctions, including prohibiting the introduction of matters

into evidence, for failing to comply with an order regarding

discovery. A trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert

testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Tabieros v.

Clark Equip. Co., 85 Hawaiʻi 336, 391, 944 P.2d 1279, 1334

(1997). We determine that the circuit court did not abuse its

discretion in finding that Gray's report was untimely.

On January 9, 2020, the Plaintiffs identified specific

expert witness reports that they stipulated would be due either

by January 15, 2020 or by January 29, 2020. On June 23, 2021,

the parties expressly stipulated as to a new pretrial deadline

of October 15, 2021 with specific regard to "Plaintiffs' legal

causation and damages witnesses including expert reports and

supplemental expert reports based on newly developed evidence

for Plaintiffs [Arias], Torres [Hernandez], Mendez, and Rivera."

(Emphasis added.)

The Plaintiffs represent that they produced Gray's

report on October 15, 2021. The report was not based on newly

discovered evidence relating to Arias, Torres Hernandez, Mendez,

and Rivera. Gray instead relied on prior findings and reports

from other experts, including Sullivan, the Plaintiffs' expert,

17
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and Charles Faust, the Defendants' expert. Thus, the October

15, 2021 deadline did not apply to Gray's report.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the

circuit court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Gray's

testimony, and we affirm the circuit court's May 6, 2022 order.

J. Point of Error M.

Plaintiffs' point of error M contends that the circuit

court erred in entering its July 22, 2021 minute order granting

Dow's motion for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'

punitive damages claim. The circuit court's minute order is not

appealable. See Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88

Hawaiʻi 319, 321 n.3, 966 P.2d 631, 633 n.3 (1998). We therefore

do not consider this point of error.

III. Conclusion

We affirm in part and vacate in part the circuit

court's Final Judgment, and remand for further proceedings

consistent with this memorandum opinion.9

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, September 22, 2025.

On the briefs:
Keith M. Kiuchi, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Scott M. Hendler (pro hac Chief Judge
vice)
(Hendler Flores Law, PLLC), /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Associate Judge

9
Pursuant to HRAP Rule 34(c), Plaintiffs-Appellants' July 11, 2025
Motion for Retention of Oral Argument is denied.

18
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Melvyn M. Miyagi, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Defendant/Third-Party Associate Judge
Plaintiff-Appellee
Dole Food Company, Inc.,
and for Defendants-Appellees
Dole Fresh Fruit Company,
Standard Fruit Company, and
Standard Fruit and Steamship
Company.

David W.H. Chee,
for Defendants-Appellees
Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A.,
Inc. and Del Monte Fresh
Produce (Hawaiʻi) Inc.

Steven L. Goto,
for Defendant-Appellee
Dow Chemical Company.

Wendell H. Fuji,
for Defendant-Appellee
Shell Oil Company.