Edwards v. International

Nature of the document

The provided text is Cybex International, Inc.’s letter requesting a pre-motion conference, together with the court’s order scheduling that conference. It is not a decision on the proposed motions or on the underlying product-liability claims.

Background and claims

The letter describes the case as a product-liability lawsuit. It states that Lynda Edwards alleges she was injured while sitting on an exercise machine manufactured by Cybex, when the foot plate of a 45-degree leg-press machine fell and struck her. The letter says the plaintiffs assert negligence and strict-liability claims based on alleged design defects and failure to warn.

Cybex denies that its leg press is defective. According to the letter, Cybex contends that the incident occurred because the foot plate was not fully engaged at the end of the exercise.

Cybex’s proposed motions

Cybex requested permission to file two motions. First, it seeks to exclude the plaintiffs’ liability expert, Dr. C.J. Abraham, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. A Daubert motion asks the court to decide whether proposed expert testimony is sufficiently reliable and supported by appropriate qualifications and methods to be admitted.

Cybex argues that Dr. Abraham lacks qualifying experience in exercise-machine design and warnings. It also argues that his opinions are unreliable because he did not examine the leg press or an example machine, perform testing or modeling, quantify risks, read the plaintiff’s deposition, identify supporting scientific literature, or use a demonstrated scientific method. The letter further states that Dr. Abraham spent about eight hours on the case and opined broadly that all 45-degree leg presses are inherently defective.

Second, Cybex seeks permission to file a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment asks the court to resolve a claim without a trial when the required evidence does not show a genuine dispute requiring a trial. Cybex argues that the design-defect claims cannot proceed without competent expert testimony and that Dr. Abraham did not identify a feasible alternative design that would have prevented the injury. The letter says his proposed substitute—a seated, horizontal leg machine—is a different machine with different functions and benefits.

Cybex also argues that the failure-to-warn claims should not proceed because there is no evidence that a different warning caused or would have prevented the injury. The letter states that the machine had a warning directed at the user about properly latching the safety device, that Lynda Edwards testified she read it, and that Dr. Abraham’s proposed warning differed mainly by using “Danger!” instead of “WARNING.”

Court action

The court ordered that a pre-motion conference would be held on November 4, 2025. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied Cybex permission to file either motion, excluded Dr. Abraham’s testimony, granted summary judgment, or otherwise decided the merits of the case.