Feuerstein et al v. Home Depot U.S.A. Incorporated et al
Filing
144
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 121 Motion in Limine seeking to exclude the testimony of Jon Ver Halen. See PDF document for full text. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 6/12/14.(JWS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Burt Feuerstein and Janet Shalwitz,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
The Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.,
)
Gorilla Ladder Company, Tricam
)
Industries, Inc., Trex Company, Inc., )
and A.B.C. Corp.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
2:12-cv-01062 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motion at Docket 121]
18
19
I. MOTION PRESENTED
20
At docket 121, Plaintiffs Burt Feuerstein (“Feuerstein”) and Janet Shalwitz
21
(collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the testimony of Jon
22
Ver Halen (“Ver Halen”), expert witness for defendants The Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.
23
(“Home Depot”) and Tricam Industries, Inc. (“Tricam”; collectively “Ladder Defendants”).
24
The memorandum and documents in support are at docket 122. Ladder Def endants
25
respond at docket 127. Plaintiffs reply at docket 134. Oral argument was requested,
26
but would not be of additional assistance to the court.
27
28
1
2
II. BACKGROUND
The parties are familiar with the background of the accident in this case and the
3
claims made by Plaintiffs against the Ladder Defendants. A full recitation of the facts
4
and claims is located in the court’s order at docket 140.
5
Ladder Defendants hired Ver Halen as an expert witness. His expert report and
6
professional qualifications are in the record at docket 122-1. In his report, Ver Halen
7
critiques the methodology and opinions of Plaintiffs’ experts, explains the tests he
8
conducted, and sets forth six concluding opinions regarding Feuerstein’s ladder
9
accident.1 Plaintiffs argue that some of Ver Halen’s opinions should be deemed
10
inadmissible. First, Plaintiffs argue that Ver Halen is not qualified to offer opinions
11
regarding the slip resistance of Feuerstein’s decking or to critique the slip resistance
12
test results obtained by their expert, Jay Preston (“Preston”). Second, they argue that
13
Ver Halen cannot give his opinion about the placement and set up of Feuerstein’s
14
ladder on the day of the accident because his opinion is based on inaccurate and
15
unreliable photographs. Third, they argue that Ver Halen’s test to demonstrate that the
16
type of ladder used by Feuerstein, the Tricam AL-22 (“AL-22"), cannot “walk” is
17
unreliable because Ver Halen lost the original video recording of him conducting the
18
test. Ver Halen had to repeat the test and create another recording . Lastly, they argue
19
that Ver Halen’s opinions about the AL-22's com pliance with the governing safety
20
standards—ANSI A14.2— should be excluded because it is based on testing he did in
21
2002 with a different model of the AL-22.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Doc. 122-1 at p. 13.
-2-
1
III. DISCUSSION
2
The court has broad discretion when ruling on motions in limine.2 Rule 702
3
permits opinion testimony by an expert as long as the witness is qualified and the
4
witness’s opinion is relevant and reliable. 3 “[A] district court’s inquiry into admissibility is
5
a flexible one.”4 The purpose of the district court’s inquiry is “to screen the jury from
6
unreliable nonsense opinions” and not to “exclude opinions merely because they are
7
impeachable.”5 The district court functions as a “gatekeeper, not a fact finder.”6
8
Under Rule 702, a witness is “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
9
experience, training, or education.”7 “Expert opinion testimony is relevant if the
10
knowledge underlying it has a valid connection to the pertinent inquiry. And it is reliable
11
if the knowledge underlying it has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of
12
the relevant discipline.”8 The district court’s task in screening a scientific opinion for
13
reliability was addressed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.9 and its
14
progeny. “The court must assess the expert’s reasoning or methodology, using as
15
appropriate criteria such as testability, publication in peer-reviewed literature, known or
16
17
18
19
20
2
See Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002); see also
Campbell Indus. v. M/V Gemini, 619 F.2d 24, 27 (9th Cir. 1980) (“A district court is vested with
broad discretion to make . . . evidentiary rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly
trial.”).
21
3
22
4
23
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., Nos. 12-55147, 12-55193, 2014 WL 1724505, at
*3 (9th Cir. May 2, 2014).
5
24
25
Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969 (9th Cir. 2013).
6
Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 565 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted).
26
7
27
8
28
9
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Primiano, 598 F.3d at 565 (internal quotations omitted).
509 U.S. 579 (1993).
-3-
1
potential error rate, and general acceptance.” 10 However, these factors are “not
2
definitive, and the trial court has discretion to decide how to test an expert’s reliability as
3
well as whether the testimony is reliable, based on the particular circumstances of the
4
particular case.”11 If an expert does not “conduct his or her own research, independent
5
of the litigation, on the subject of the testimony, the district court must determine
6
whether there exists any ‘objective, verifiable evidence that the testimony is based on
7
scientifically valid principles.’”12 When non-scientific testimony is at issue, the “Daubert
8
factors (peer review, publication, potential error rate, etc.) simply are not applicable
9
. . . .”13 The reliability of such non-scientific testimony depends more “on the knowledge
10
11
and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory behind it.”14
“It is the proponent of the expert who has the burden of proving admissibility.”15
12
Admissibility must be established by preponderance of the evidence.16 The party
13
presenting the expert has the burden to show that the expert’s findings are based on
14
“sound science” and that the expert’s methodology is capable of independent
15
validation.17
16
17
18
19
10
20
11
21
22
23
24
25
Pomona, 2014 WL 1724505, at *3.
Primiano, 598 F.3d at 564 (internal quotations omitted).
12
Domingo ex rel. Domingo v. T.K., 289 F.3d 600, 605 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1317–18 (9th Cir.1995)).
13
Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1017 (9th Cir. 2004)
(quoting United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005)).
14
Id. (quoting Hankey, 299 F.3d at 1069) (emphasis in original).
26
15
27
16
28
17
Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir. 1996).
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n.10.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995).
-4-
1
2
A. Ver Halen’s opinions regarding slip resistance
Plaintiffs argue that Ver Halen is not qualified to testify about the slip resistance
3
of Feuerstein’s Trex decking and thus cannot offer opinions about Preston’s slip
4
resistance testing. In their reply, Plaintiffs shift their argument and assert that his
5
opinions are not reliable. Ver Halen’s curriculum vitae indicates that he has an
6
engineering degree and many years’ experience as an engineer. He was a member of
7
the ANSI committee that governs ladder safety. Thus, he is qualified to offer opinions
8
about ladder accidents and ladder safety standards, including ladder slip resistance.
9
Moreover, based on his report and his training as an engineer and his experience in
10
accident reconstruction, the court concludes that Ver Halen is suf ficiently qualified to
11
offer his opinion about the data Preston obtained during his slip resistance testing.
12
That is, he can comment about the scientific errors in Preston’s analysis of the test
13
data, discuss the variability of Preston’s results, and offer his opinion on what could
14
cause such a variance.
15
However, Ladder Defendants’ response brief appears to expand the scope of
16
Ver Halen’s expert report and the opinions he plans to of fer. They assert that Ver
17
Halen not only criticized Preston’s results, but also came to the conclusion that the
18
“coefficient of friction” (“COF”) created by the accident ladder’s feet on the Trex decking
19
was in fact sufficient to support Feuerstein on the ladder. W hile Ver Halen’s report
20
states that a COF of .25 would be needed “to resist the static loads of the user”
21
generally, he does not state how he arrived at that number or whether Feuerstein’s
22
ladder provided the necessary COF of .25.18 Ladder Defendants repeatedly refer to the
23
fact that Ver Halen conducted his own tests to determine the COF of the accident
24
ladder’s feet on the Trex deck, but the record does not show that Ver Halen ran specific
25
COF tests or conducted an analysis to determine the minimum COF needed to prevent
26
a slip out. Ver Halen’s report describes only two tests: a simple test climb of the ladder
27
28
18
Doc. 122-1 at 10.
-5-
1
at the scene and then another simple test climb done with an exemplar ladder on Trex
2
decking to disprove Plaintiffs’ theory that the ladder could walk.
3
Ladder Defendants assert that Ver Halen concluded that the COF of the ladder’s
4
feet was adequate by “compar[ing] Preston’s results with COF test results obtained as
5
part of Trex’s quality control, using the same [measuring instrument] employed by
6
Preston on Feuerstein’s deck.” 19 But Defendants do not put forth any evidence to
7
confirm that such a comparison was indeed the basis for Ver Halen’s conclusion. Ver
8
Halen’s report does not discuss such a comparison, and Ladder Defendants did not
9
submit deposition testimony or an affidavit from Ver Halen to support such an assertion.
10
Ladder Defendants assert that Trex’s COF tests results ranged from .58 – .68 (in
11
comparison with Preston’s range of .22 – .42), but Ladder Defendants do not provide
12
the court with a copy of Trex’s COF data for verification.
13
Ladder Defendants’ brief also contains quotes from Ver Halen’s deposition
14
where he testifies about the adequate COF needed to safely hold Feuerstein on the
15
ladder based upon his calculations, but that deposition testim ony is not included as an
16
exhibit. Furthermore, the deposition testimony quoted is conclusory in nature and does
17
not sufficiently explain how Ver Halen calculated the COF or what his analysis entailed.
18
Thus, Ladder Defendants have not put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ver
19
Halen can reliably provide his own opinion about the adequacy of the ladder’s slip
20
resistance based on his COF calculations, which have not been sufficiently described to
21
the court.
22
B. Ver Halen’s reliance on photographs
23
Ver Halen’s report concludes that one potential cause of the accident was the
24
shallow angle of the ladder set up. He bases that conclusion on a photog raph provided
25
by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs have subsequently disputed the accuracy and relevancy
26
of the photograph. Feuerstein clarified in his deposition that the photograph is merely
27
28
19
Doc. 127 at p. 3.
-6-
1
an approximation of where the ladder was set up and not evidence of the angle at
2
which it was set. While Feuerstein testified at his deposition that he had the angle set
3
up properly at 75 degrees and not at the angle in the photograph, that statement is
4
impeachable based on the existence of the photograph which Plaintiffs’ provided to
5
Ladder Defendants in discovery and based on Feuerstein’s testimony that the
6
photograph showed the approximate location of the ladder’s feet. So any opinions and
7
conclusions Ver Halen may have drawn from the photo, while impeachable, are
8
nonetheless admissible. Ver Halen can provide testimony regarding the safety issues
9
present in the event Feuerstein set up the ladder at the angle depicted in the
10
photograph.
11
C. Lost recording
12
Ver Halen performed testing to test Plaintiffs’ theory that Feuerstein’s AL-22
13
“walked,” causing it to slip out underneath Feuerstein. Ver Halen set up the ladder at
14
an appropriate angle on Feuerstein’s Trex decking and tested it for stability and
15
slippage. His reports states that no walking or slippage occurred. He also set up an
16
exemplar ladder on Trex decking to determine if the ladder could walk when set up and
17
used as it was on the day of the accident. He positioned the ladder at 75 deg rees and
18
had a 210-pound user (the approximate weight of Feuerstein) climb up and down the
19
ladder multiple times to test whether the ladder would shift weight between its feet and
20
“walk.” According to the report, the ladder did not move. The report indicates that a
21
video was made of the “walking test,” but Ver Halen was unable to locate a copy of the
22
recording to bring to his deposition. He then re-ran the test and created another
23
recording.
24
Plaintiffs assert that any testimony regarding Ver Halen’s “walking test” should be
25
inadmissible because of the lost recording. The court disagrees. The basic test Ver
26
Halen conducted to determine if the ladder could walk is described in his Rule 26
27
report. While the original video footage was lost, he re-ran the same test and had it
28
recorded. ‘Ver Halen can discuss the results of the second test and the results can be
-7-
1
verified through the video. Any concern Plaintiffs have about the differences between
2
the two tests or about the loss of the original data can be addressed during cross
3
examination.
4
D. ANSI standards
5
Lastly, Plaintiffs assert that Ver Halen’s opinion that the AL-22 m eets the
6
governing ANSI safety standard should be excluded. They base this argument on the
7
fact that Ver Halen’s own ANSI testing on the AL-22 ladder was done in 2002 on a
8
different model of the AL-22. While Plaintiffs’ point is well taken, the court concludes
9
that this issue goes more to weight than admissibility. Moreover, Ver Halen’s opinion is
10
not based solely on his own testing. He also bases his opinion on the pre-purchase test
11
report for the model of AL-22 that Feuerstein owns. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not dispute
12
that the AL-22 passed pre-purchase testing for ANSI compliance.
13
14
15
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion, Plaintiffs’ motion in limine at docket 121 is
DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.
16
Ver Halen may provide his opinion about the scientific errors in Preston’s
17
analysis of the test data, discuss the variability of Preston’s results, and offer his
18
opinion on the things that could cause such a variance. However, for the reasons
19
discussed above, Ver Halen cannot testify that in his opinion the ladder’s feet were
20
adequately slip resistant based on his COF calculations. Ver Halen may otherwise
21
testify as indicated in his Rule 26 report.
22
DATED this 12th day of June 2014.
23
24
/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
-8-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?