United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 21-2107 STEVE STEVENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WINDMOELLER & HOELSCHER CORP., Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:19-cv-00052 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.

ARGUED FEBRUARY 17, 2022 — DECIDED JULY 7, 2022

Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Steve Stevenson appeals the district court’s decision in this product-liability action not to appoint a neutral expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Finding no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision, we affirm. 2 No. 21-2107

I. Stevenson was injured in the course of his employment with a commercial printing company. He was moving a portable ladder in order to clean a component of a Primaflex printing press, manufactured by defendant Windmoeller & Hoelscher Corporation, that prints flexible packaging for consumer goods such as bread and potato chips. The printing press is a large machine measuring some 53 feet long and 17 feet high. The ladder Stevenson was handling was one of two supplied with the machine, and its use was necessary in order to reach an otherwise out-of-reach printing plate on the upper level of the machine’s interior. As Stevenson moved the ladder, it caught on the 10-foot cable of an operator pendant attached to the machine, which caused him to twist and injure his left shoulder and back. He later had surgery as a result of the injury. Stevenson filed this product-liability suit against Wind- moeller on theories of negligence and strict liability, arguing that the design of the printing press—including the placement of the 10-foot cable near the access door used to service the interior components of the machine—was defective, in that it foreseeably gave rise to the very scenario that injured Steven- son: the ladder catching on the cable. Shortly after the close of fact discovery, Stevenson’s court- appointed counsel1 filed a motion asking the court to appoint

1 Stevenson’s original counsel withdrew shortly after this suit was removed from state to federal court. Stevenson proceeded pro se for approximately (continued...) No. 21-2107 3 an engineering expert2 pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706, which in relevant part provides: On a party’s motion or on its own, the court may order the parties to show cause why expert wit- nesses should not be appointed and may ask the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert that the parties agree on and any of its own choosing. But the court may only appoint someone who consents to act. Rule 706(a). This rule codifies the inherent power of a trial judge to appoint an expert who will function as a neutral expert serving the court rather than any particular party. See 29 Charles A. Wright & Victor J. Gold, FEDERAL PRAC. & PROC. §§ 6301–02 (1997). The rule also specifies that in a civil case (other than one involving just compensation under the Fifth Amendment), the expert’s compensation is payable “by the parties in the proportion and at the time that the court directs—and the compensation is then charged like other costs.” Rule 706(c)(2). Stevenson’s position was that the appointment of an engineering expert was necessary in order to assist the jury in understanding the manufacturing and product evidence that the parties would present, given that the issues raised in the case (including the design and functioning of the printing machine,