Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 729

Declaration of Jason McDonell in Support of 728 MOTION in Limine Defendants' Motions in Limine Declaration of Jason McDonell in Support of Defendants' Motions in Limine filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC)(Related document(s) 728 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 8/5/2010)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 729 Att. 25

EXHIBIT Y

Dockets.Justia.com

LEXSEE

Analysis As of: Aug 04, 2010 WILLIAM NOAH POWELL v. HOUSTON HELICOPTERS, INC. CIVIL ACTION No. 90-3070 SECTION "I"(6) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1052

January 22, 1992, Decided January 23, 1992, Filed; January 24, 1992, Entered CORE TERMS: helicopter, expert testimony, trier of fact, offshore, deck JUDGES: [*1] MENTZ OPINION BY: MENTZ OPINION MENTZ, J. Before the Court is the Motion to Prohibit Certain Expert Testimony, filed by the defendant, Houston Helicopters, Inc. ("Houston Helicopters"). Houston Helicopters seeks to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's offshore helicopter operations expert. After reviewing the motion, memoranda of counsel, the record, and the law, the Court denies the motion. Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides where an expert's "specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," expert testimony is appropriate. Offshore helicopter operations and the responsibilities of helicopter pilots are not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of lay people. Thus, the Court finds that this is a case in which expert testimony may assist the trier of fact. This case is distinguishable from Peters v. Five Star Marine Service, 898 F.2d 448 (5th Cir. 1990). In Peters, the Fifth Circuit upheld Judge Duplantier's ruling that expert testimony was unnecessary to assist the trier of fact in understanding the dangers that may result when offloading a vessel in high seas, with diesel fuel spilled [*2] on the deck, or with improperly stowed equipment rolling about the deck. Id. at 450. The Court in its discretion finds that offshore helicopter operations, unlike the facts that waves may be dangerous or oil slippery, are sufficiently unfamiliar to an ordinary factfinder that expert testimony is warranted. The parties are reminded, however, that the testimony of any expert is limited to the contents of the expert's report and any deposition of the expert. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Motion to Prohibit Certain Expert Testimony, filed by the defendant, Houston Helicopters, Inc. is DENIED; and (2) the hearing on this motion set for January 29, 1992 is CANCELED. Clerk to serve all counsel.

Page 1