Chandler et al v. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc et al
ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 94 Motion in Limine, 95 Motion to Exclude; denying Defendants' 97 Motion to Exclude, 98 Motion for Summary Judgment, 99 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 5/2/2014. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TED CHANDLER and MARTHA CHANDLER
JACOB ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., et al.
Pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Certain Defense
Witnesses (Doc. No. 94) and Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Scott Turner (Doc. No. 95).
Also pending are Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Ernst Peters (Doc. No. 97)
and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 98, 99). For the reasons set out below, the
motions are DENIED.
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Certain Defense Witnesses
Plaintiffs contend that Shane Meyer, Jeff Adams, Elizabeth Mayfield Hart, Lynn Parrish,
James Smith, and Max Watson should all be excluded as experts because Defendants did not
submit any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) expert reports by the deadline set out in
the scheduling order. Since no brief accompanied Plaintiffs’ motion, no other information about
these witnesses was provided.
Defendants response detailed each witness mentioned in Plaintiffs’ motion. Shane Meyer
was the police officer who investigated the wreck; Jeffrey Adams is an engineer at the Arkansas
Highway and Transportation Department; Elizabeth Mayfield-Hart is also a AHTD employee
and is familiar with “traffic counts” on roadways; Lynn Parrish is vice president of safety and
risk management for a company that provided services to Plaintiffs’ employer; and James Smith
and Max Watson are Defendants’ employees.
Rule 26(a)(2)(B), titled “Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report,” affects
witnesses who are “retained or specifically employed to provide expert testimony in the case or
one whose duties as the party’s employee regularly involve giving expert testimony.” Based on
Defendants’ representations, it does not appear that any of the witnesses listed in Plaintiffs’
motion are the type required to supply an expert report under FRCP 26(a)(2)(B). Accordingly
the motion is DENIED.
To the extent that Plaintiffs are arguing that the witnesses were disclosed two days after
the deadline, the motion is DENIED, since there appears to be no prejudice to Plaintiffs. All of
the witnesses, except for Ms. Mayfield-Hart have been deposed already. If Plaintiffs want to
depose Ms. Mayfield-Hart, they should forthwith inform Defendants and the parties should
cooperate in getting the deposition scheduled.
2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Scott Turner
Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Scott Turner’s testimony should be excluded because he is not
qualified to offer the opinions in his report, since he is “neither an accident reconstructionist nor
human factors expert.”1 Plaintiffs also point out that he “cannot testify to the ultimate issue in
the case, which is before the jury, i.e. negligence.”2
Plaintiffs’ challenges to Mr. Turner’s qualifications are issues that can be brought up
during cross examination. As for testifying about the ultimate issue in the case, I agree that the
witness will be expected to provide more than just a conclusion. Additionally, Plaintiffs point
out that Defendants “offered Turner as an expert to rebut Ernie Peters,” (their case in chief
Doc. No. 96.
expert) and that expert opinion is not needed in this case because the “testimony is within the
jury’s knowledge or experience.”3 If so, perhaps Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief expert is not necessary.
Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.
3. Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Ernst Peters
Each of the issues raised in Defendants’ motion may be points for cross-examination, but
not pretrial exclusions so the motion is DENIED.
Defendants contend that they were not provided with Ernst Peters’s resume until the day
after he was deposed, so his testimony should be excluded. Defendants may conduct a short -no more than an hour -- deposition regarding Mr. Peters’s resume and qualifications.
4. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
The undisputed facts are that Plaintiffs were involved in a single-vehicle accident in a
construction zone that was set up by Defendants. The disputed facts are whether the
construction zone set-up or Plaintiffs’ driving was the cause of the accident. This is not a fact
situation that would warrant summary judgment. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2014.
/s/Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?