Dudley Flying Service Inc v. Ag Air Maintenance Services Inc

Filing 70

ORDER denying 56 Motion for Reconsideration and ruling that Dr. Kumar's anticipated testimony is admissible. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 4/15/2015. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
DUDLEY FLYING SERVICE, INC.
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 3:13-cv-00156-KGB

AG AIR MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC.

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Before the Court is the motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff Dudley Flying
Service, Inc. (“Dudley”) (Dkt. No. 56). Dudley seeks partial reconsideration of the Court’s
Opinion and Order denying Dudley’s motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 54).
Specifically, Dudley seeks reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on Dudley’s Daubert challenge
to the anticipated testimony of Dr. Arun Kumar, one of the experts for defendant Ag Air
Maintenance, Inc. (“Ag Air”). Ag Air has responded in opposition (Dkt. No. 68). Dudley’s
amended motion in limine incorporates Dudley’s Daubert challenge to Dr. Kumar’s testimony
(Dkt. No. 50), and Ag Air has also responded to that motion (Dkt. No. 53).
The Court heard argument on this issue from counsel for both parties at the pretrial
hearing the Court conducted on April 13, 2015. At the hearing, counsel for Ag Air referenced an
affidavit from Dr. Kumar that had yet to be submitted for the Court’s consideration. After the
hearing, counsel for Ag Air submitted the affidavit from Dr. Kumar addressing Dudley’s specific
attack on Dr. Kumar’s report and anticipated testimony.
In determining whether expert testimony should be admitted under Federal Rule of
Evidence 702, the district court must decide if the expert’s testimony and methodology are
reliable, relevant, and can be applied reasonably to the facts of the case. David E. Watson, P.C.
v. United States, 668 F.3d 1008, 1015 (8th Cir. 2012); Barrett v. Rhodia, Inc., 606 F.3d 975, 980

(8th Cir. 2010). Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the
district court must conduct this initial inquiry as part of its gatekeeping function. Watson, 668
F.3d at 1015. Daubert is meant to protect juries from uncertain scientific testimony. Id. To
satisfy the reliability requirement for admission of expert testimony, the party offering the expert
testimony must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the expert is qualified to render the
opinion and that the methodology underlying his conclusions is scientifically valid. Barrett, 606
F.3d at 980 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To satisfy the relevance requirement
for the admission of expert testimony, the proponent must show that the expert’s reasoning or
methodology was applied properly to the facts at issue. Id.
After hearing arguments of counsel and reviewing Dr. Kumar’s affidavit, the Court sees
no basis to reconsider its prior ruling that Ag Air has met its burden to demonstrate the
admissibility under Rule 702 of Dr. Kumar’s anticipated testimony. In challenging Dr. Kumar’s
anticipated testimony, even in regard to the points raised at the pretrial hearing, at most Dudley
has expressed a disagreement with the underlying assumptions Dr. Kumar made in his
calculations.

“[M]ere disagreement with the assumptions and methodology used does not

warrant exclusion of expert testimony.” Watson, 668 F.3d at 1015 (quoting Synergetics, Inc. v.
Hurst, 477 F.3d 949, 956 (8th Cir. 2007)).
For these reasons, the Court denies Dudley’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 56)
and rules that Dr. Kumar’s anticipated testimony is admissible.
SO ORDERED this the 15th day of April, 2015.

____________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

2