Shearouse v. Remington Arms Company, LLC
Filing
54
ORDER denying 32 Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Causation Opinion ofPlaintiff's Liability Expert and Incorporated Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 10/11/2019. (evk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA^
np.T Ifl
SAVANNAH DIVISION
CODY SHEAROUSE,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. CV417-107
V.
REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before
the
Court
is
Defendant's
Motion
to
Exclude
the
Testimony and Causation Opinion of Plaintiff s Liability Expert
and Incorporated Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 32.) For the
following reasons. Defendant's motion (Doc. 32) is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This case involves an alleged product defect in Defendant's
Remington Model 770 rifle. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff, at the time of
the incident, was twenty years old and had been hunting with his
father from a young age. (Doc. 38 at H 13; Doc. 45 at f 13.) On
July 26, 2015, Plaintiff planned to shoot a turtle that had been
eating the fish in a pond behind his house and went to retrieve
his Remington Model 770 (the "Shearouse gun") from the gun case.
(Doc. 38 at SI 14-15; Doc. 45 at SI 14-15.) Plaintiff claims that
he loaded the magazine, put the magazine in the gun, walked to
the back porch, closed the bolt to chamber a round and then the
rifle discharged without Plaintiff pulling the trigger. (Doc. 38
at K
15;
Doc. 45 at f 15.)^ The bullet from the Shearouse gun
fired through Plaintiff's right foot. (Doc. 38 at 1 16; Doc. 45
at f 16.) Plaintiff seeks recovery in this products liability
action
under
theories
of
strict liability,
negligence,
and
a
breach of the duty to warn. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff pursues theories
of manufacturing defect, design defect, and breach of the duty
to warn. (Id.)
Both
parties have retained experts to testify. Plaintiff
has retained Jack Belk as a liability expert. (Doc. 38 at 31 20.)
Plaintiff and Plaintiff's liability expert.
Jack Belk, believe
that the rifle was defectively manufactured and designed. (Doc.
38 at 31 20; Doc. 45 at 31 20.) Specifically, they contend that
the Shearouse gun contained a manufacturing defect in that the
trigger spring was misaligned which "resulted in the adjoining
parts
interfering
misaligned
with
trigger
the
spring
spring."
(Doc.
"created
a
38
at
31
22.)
situation
The
where
interference would ultimately cause the trigger spring to fail
to fully push the trigger into a safe engagement after firing,
1 Defendant objects to Plaintiff's factual assertion that he did
not pull the trigger because Plaintiff allegedly admitted to an
officer on the day of the injury that he did pull the trigger to
see if the safety was on. (Doc. 45 at 31 13.) However, for
purposes of evaluating a motion for summary judgment, this Court
does not weigh the evidence and must take the non-movants facts
as true. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 577-78 (1986).
causing
(Id.)
the
rifle
Plaintiff
contained
two
to fire
and
Belk
design
without the trigger
also
contend
defects.
that
being
the
pulled."
Shearouse
The first design
gun
defect is the
"absence of a recess or lug to hold the trigger return spring in
place and prevent it from becoming misaligned and interfering
with the surrounding parts." (Id. at 1 23.) The second design
defect is "the use of a square nosed trigger pull screw instead
of
a
round
or
domed
friction
and the
edge
a
of
concluded
which
risk
square
the
pull
screw,
of interference
nosed
that these
caused
trigger
pull
rifle
to
with
screw."
defects "resulted
fire
on
which
the
(Id.
in
an
bolt
would
spring
at
I
on
24.)
unsafe
closure
reduce
the
Belk
engagement
without
the
trigger being pulled." (Id. at SI 25.)
Defendant, of course, rejects these contentions and moves
to
exclude
Belk's
opinion
as
to
causation.
Specifically,
Defendant contends that Belk's opinion that the misalignment of
the trigger spring in the rifle's trigger mechanism caused the
sear and the trigger to disengage which led to a fire on bolt
closure
is
inadmissible
Pharmaceuticals,
509
U.S.
under
579
Daubert
(1993).
v.
(Doc.
Merrell
35
at
Dow
12-17.)
Defendant asserts that Belk's opinions are inadmissible because
"Belk
has
testing,
no
to
reliable
validate
basis,
his
let
alone
hypothesis
supportive
that,
at
the
scientific
moment
of
Plaintiff s shooting, the rifle fired without a trigger pull due
to
any
defect
in
the
trigger
mechanism,
rather
than" simply
firing when the trigger was pulled. (Doc. 35 at 1.) Defendant
contends
trigger
that
Belk's
spring
is
causation
not
theory
reliable
because
about
the
his
misaligned
theory
is
not
supported by physical evidence and testing. (Id. at 12.)
Plaintiff
objects
to
the
exclusion
of
Belk's
causation
opinion and contends that Belk's expert testimony falls into the
^"technical"
or
^'other
specialized
knowledge"
categories
of
expert testimony permitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
(Doc. 37 at 12.) Plaintiff argues that Belk's opinion does rely
on testing, namely the x-ray film of the internal parts of the
Shearouse gun, and that the films clearly show that the trigger
return spring is misaligned. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that Belk
came
to
his
opinion
by
his
experience
and
knowledge
as
a
gunsmith in that he can mechanically examine the rifle, examine
the films showing the location of internal parts and determine
if any parts are out of place, and then predict how the trigger
will perform. (Id. at 14.)
In conjunction with its motion to exclude the testimony of
Belk, Defendant argues that, without admissible expert opinion
testimony
on
the
element
of
causation.
Plaintiff
lacks
sufficient proof to take his case to trial and that Defendant is
entitled
Plaintiff
to
summary
opposes
judgment
summary
in
its
judgment
favor.
and
(Doc.
argues
35
that
at
17.)
Belk's
opinion is admissible under Daubert. {Doc. 37 at 17.) Plaintiff
also argues that, even if Belk's testimony is excluded, summary
judgment is not proper because Defendant's expert admitted that
the Shearouse gun would only fire because the trigger was pulled
or because of a defect. (Id.) Thus, as Plaintiff has testified
in
his
deposition
that
he
did
not
pull
the
trigger,
the
"determination of whether or not Plaintiff pulled the trigger is
a fact question that must be decided by a jury." (Id. at 17-18.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary
judgment
shall
be
rendered
"if
the
pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together
with
the
affidavits,
if
any,
show
that there
is
no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c).
The
"purpose
of
summary
judgment
is
to
^pierce
the
pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there
is a genuine need for trial.' " Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356, 89
L.
Ed.
2d
committee
538
(1986)
notes).
(citing
Summary
Fed.
judgment
R.
is
Civ.
P.
56
appropriate
advisory
when
the
nonmovant "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on
which
that
Celotex
party
Corp.
v.
will
bear
Catrett,
477
the
burden
U.S.
317,
of
322,
proof
at
106 S.
trial."
Ct.
2548,
2552, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The substantive law governing the
action determines whether an element is essential. DeLong Equip.
Co. V. Mash. Mills Abrasive Co., 887 F.2d 1499, 1505 (11th Cir.
1989).
As the Supreme Court explained:
[A] party seeking summary judgment always
bears
the
initial
responsibility
of
informing the district court of the basis
for
its
motion,
and
identifying
those
portions
of
the
pleadings,
depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions
on file, together with the affidavits, if
any,
which
it
believes
demonstrate
the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex,
477
U.S.
at
323,
106 S.
Ct.
at 2553.
The
burden
then shifts to the nonmovant to establish, by going beyond the
pleadings, that there is a genuine issue as to facts material to
the nonmovant's case. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604,
608 (11th Cir. 1991). The Court must review the evidence and all
reasonable factual inferences arising from it in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587-88, 106
S. Ct. at 1356. However, the nonmoving party ^'must do more than
simply
show
that
there
is
some
material facts." Id., 475 U.S.
metaphysical
at 586,
doubt
106 S. Ct.
as
at
to
the
1356. A
mere "scintilla" of evidence, or simply conclusory allegations,
will not suffice. See, e.g., Tidwell v. Carter Prods., 135 F.3d
1422,
1425
(11th
Cir.
fact finder may "draw
1998).
Nevertheless,
where
a
reasonable
more than one inference from the
facts.
and
then
that inference
the
Court
creates a
should
genuine
refuse
to
issue
grant
of material
summary
fact,
judgment."
Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 933-34 (11th Cir. 1989).
ANALYSIS
I.
DEFENDANT'S
MOTION
TO EXCLUDE THE
TESTIMONY
OF PLAINTIFF^S
LIABILITY EXPERT
The admission of expert testimony is controlled by Federal
Rule of Evidence 702:
A witness who is qualified as an expert
by
knowledge,
skill,
experience,
training, or education may testify in
the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical,
or
other
specialized
knowledge
will
help the trier of fact to understand
the
evidence
or
to
determine
a
fact
in
issue;
(b)
the
testimony
is
based
on
sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of
reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the
principles and methods to the facts of
the case.
"As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Daubert, Rule 702
compels
function
district
concerning
evidence."
Cir.
to
the
perform
the
admissibility
critical
of
expert
gatekeeping
scientific
United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th
2004)
function
courts
(internal
equally
quotation
applies
to
omitted).
the
This
admissibility
gatekeeping
of
expert
technical evidence. Id.; Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S.
137, 147-49, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1174-75, 143 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1999).
The
Eleventh
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
has
explained
that
district courts fulfill that function by engaging in a threepart inquiry, considering whether
(1) the expert is qualified to testify competently
regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) the
methodology
by
which
the
expert
reaches
his
conclusions
is
sufficiently
reliable
as
to
be
determined by the sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert;
and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact,
through the application of scientific . . . expertise,
to
understand
the
evidence
or
to
determine
a
fact
in
issue.
Frazier,
387
F.3d
at
1260.
Here,
Defendant
raises
an
issue
concerning the second prong: whether Belk's causation opinion is
sufficiently reliable under Daubert.
When
expert's
a
court
opinion,
considers
it
whether
the
expert's
whether
the
theory
publication; (3) the
the
considers,
theory
has
known or
of
a
particular
to
the
extent
be
and
has
been
tested;
(2)
subjected
to
peer
review
and
can
been
reliability
possible,
(1)
potential rate of error of the
particular scientific technique; and (4) whether the technique
is generally accepted in the scientific community.
Quiet Tech.
DC-8, Inc. V. Hurel-Dubois, UK, Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333, 1341 (11th
Cir. 2003)(citing McCorvey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 298 F.3d
1253, 1256 (11th Cir. 2002)).
a
These factors "do not constitute
Mefinitive checklist or test.' " Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 150
(quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593).
Rather, the applicability
of these factors "depends upon the particular circumstances of
the particular case at issue." Id. The same criteria that are
used to assess the reliability of a scientific opinion may be
used to evaluate the reliability of non-scientific, experiencebased testimony. Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1262.
A. Belk^s Causation Opinion
The
override
Remington
trigger.
Model
(Doc.
770
37
bolt
at
action
3.)
This
rifle
kind
contains
an
trigger
is
of
designed for the sear to rest on top of the trigger. (Id.) The
overlap between the sear and the trigger is referred to as the
engagement. (Id.) When the trigger is pulled with the requisite
force, the force
disengages the
trigger from
under the
sear,
which allows the firing pin head to override the sear. (Doc. 35
at 5.) The trigger return spring slides onto the trigger pull
screw and is intended to rest flush on the face of the trigger.
(Doc.
37
spring
at
3.)
After
pushes the
the
trigger
rifle
back
is
fired,
under the
the
sear,
trigger
return
resetting
the
engagement. (Id.) An engagement of .031 inches is considered a
safe
engagement
for
the
Remington
Model
770
and
an
unsafe
engagement is anything less than .005 inches. (Id. at 4.)
In
this
case,
Belk
contends
that
the
Shearouse
gun
contained a manufacturing defect in that the trigger spring was
misaligned
with
the
which "resulted
spring." (Doc.
38
in
the
at 1
adjoining
22.)
The
parts
interfering
misaligned
trigger
spring "created a situation where interference would ultimately
cause the trigger spring to fail to fully push the trigger into
a
safe
without
engagement
the
opinion,
after
trigger
Belk
firing,
being
physically
causing
pulled."
inspected
the
the
to
fire
In
(Id.)
rifle
coming
to
this
North
Star
rifle
at
Images and reviewed X-ray films taken of the Shearouse gun which
depicted a misaligned trigger spring. (Doc. 50, Attach. 1.) Belk
testified that in his fifty years of experience, he had "never
seen a trigger this bad." (Doc. 37, Attach. 5 at 21.)
Plaintiff
contained
and
Belk
two design
also
contend
defects.
The
that
first
the
Shearouse
design
gun
defect is the
"absence of a recess or lug to hold the trigger return spring in
place and prevent it from becoming
misaligned and interfering
with the surrounding parts." (Id. at 1 23.) The second design
defect is "the use of a square nosed trigger pull screw instead
of
a
round
or
domed
friction
and the
edge
a
of
risk
square
trigger
pull
screw,
of interference
nosed
pull
with
screw."
caused
the
rifle
to
fire
on
the
(Id.
concluded that these defects "resulted in
which
which
bolt
an
would
spring
at
SI
reduce
on
24.)
the
Belk
unsafe engagement
closure
without
the
trigger being pulled." (Id. at SI 25.)
Defendant
only
challenges
the
causation
opinion
of
Belk
that a misaligned trigger spring in the Shearouse gun caused the
rifle
to
fire
without
a
trigger
pull.
(Doc.
35
at
11-17.)
Specifically, Defendant contends that Belk's "opinion that such
10
a defect caused this shooting does not "fit" the facts of the
case,
and
is
not
based
on
any
reliable
scientific
method
or
testing." (Id. at 11.) Defendant also argues that the opinion
should
be
excluded
plausible
because
explanation
for
Belk
the
cannot
exclude
shooting—namely,
the
other
pulling
the
trigger while the safety was in the "OFF" or "FIRE" position.
(Id.) Thus, Defendant does not appear to challenge Belk's design
or
manufacturing
opinion
that
defect
the
opinion
manufacturing
but
solely
defect
challenges
caused
the
the
injury
to
Plaintiff.
1. Defendant's
the
case
contention
and
is
that
not
the
based
defect
on
does
reliable
not "fit"
scientific
method
Defendant urges this Court to find that Belk's opinion is
unreliable speculation. Defendant points to the testing on the
Shearouse
gun
by
Belk
and
Remington's expert,
Derek
Watkins,
after the accident to show that the Shearouse gun only operates
as intended: firing when the trigger is pulled. (Doc. 35 at 12.)
Defendant contends that Belk's causation opinion is not based on
reliable scientific testing and methods because Belk admits that
he
did
not
observe
an
unsafe
engagement
on
the
Shearouse
gun
during the joint inspection and because no test resulted in a
replication
of
Belk's
hypothesized
fire-on-bolt-closure.
(Id.)
The Court disagrees and finds that Belk bases his testimony on
more than pure speculation.
11
First, the Court notes that both Belk and Watkins rely on
the
physical examination
and
testing
performed
inspection of the Shearouse gun. (Compare
at the
joint
Doc. 35, Attach. 1
(reviewing the digital data received from North Star Imaging of
the Shearouse gun in Belk's expert report) with Doc. 35, Attach.
4 at 2 (stating in Watkins' expert report that the rifle was
examined ^^via a CT scan, 2D radiography, optical measurements,
actuation
addition,
force
Belk
measurements
has
done
a
and
physical
significant
testing.").)
amount
of
testing
In
and
examining of firearms and override triggers. (Doc. 50, Attach. 3
at 17-18;
115-117.)
When
Belk
was
asked
whether
he
had
tested
his general hypothesis that ^'the interference with the trigger
return spring can result in a reduced trigger sear engagement
causing
the
rifle
to
fire
by
merely
closing
the
bolt," Belk
responded that he had "many, many times." (Id. at 104.) Belk
explained
his
methodology as "I
can
look
at it mechanically,
look at the parts and knowing through experience and education
how those parts interact, I can make certain deductions of how
that trigger is going to work and how it's is [sic] going to
fail."
(Doc.
50,
Attach.
4
at
240-41.)
The
Court
notes
that
Belk's qualifications, education, and experience have not been
challenged. Thus, although the tests performed on the Shearouse
gun at the joint inspection did not result in a fire on bolt
closure or a demonstration of precipitous engagement, Belk has
12
experience in the mechanical nature of override triggers. He can
explain
how
those
manufacturing
triggers
defect
he
function
and
identified
can
explain
could
lead
how
to
the
these
occurrences.
Ultimately, while there is no affirmative evidence through
testing of a fire on bolt closure, such a fact does not per se
render the opinion that the rifle fired without a trigger pull
due
to
a
manufacturing
defect
unreliable.
See
Seamon
v.
Remington Arms Co., LLC, 813 F.3d 983, 990 (11th Cir. 2016). The
fact that these
discharging
evidence,
attempts
did
not result
in
the
without a trigger pull goes to the
not
the
inconsistencies
admissibility.
through
Defendant
vigorous
Shearouse
gun
weight of the
may
address
these
cross-examination
and
presentation of contrary evidence. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596, 113
S. Ct. at 2798.
Finally,
Arms
Co.,
the
LLC,
Court briefly discusses Bachert
No.
4:15-cv-03220,
2017
WL
v.
4512555
Remington
(S.D.
Tex.
Aug. 4, 2017). Defendant contends that Bachert is ^^on all fours"
with the present case as the rifle there was tested by experts
and
cannot
be
made to malfunction
and
fire
without a
trigger
pull as claimed by the plaintiff. (Doc. 44 at 11.) In a sparse
opinion, the district court found that the plaintiff was unable
to demonstrate that a product defect caused the rifle to fire
and stated that
13
Bachert told the officer that the safety was
on when the gun fired. Tests of the rifle
after the accident showed that the trigger
could not be pulled when the safety was on.
The argument that the excess bonding agent
caused a defect in the gun is not supported
by the record.
Bachert,
2017
WL
4512555,
at
*1.
Notably,
the
district
court
when on to state that
Bachert's complaint and deposition from the
case in Illinois say that the rifle's safety
was
on
at
the
time
of
the
accident.
More
than two years after the accident and in
response to Remington's motion for judgment,
Bachert submitted a new affidavit directly
contradicting his deposition testimony; he
now claims that the safety was off.
Id.
at
*2.
that the
Thus,
rifle
the
plaintiff
was defective
in
Bachert
because
originally claimed
it fired
with the
safety
on. However, after tests showed that the gun could not be made
to
fire
with
affidavit
the
directly
contending
that
that
it
on,
the
contradicting
excess
without a trigger
stated
safety
bonding
plaintiff
his
agent
submitted
deposition
caused
a
new
testimony
and
the
gun
pull when the safety was off. Id.
was
the
plaintiff's
responsibility
to
fire
The Court
to
provide
"evidence from which a jury could reasonably determine the gun
was
defective"
and
rejected
the
plaintiff's
subsequent
affidavits as an attempt to manufacture a genuine issue of fact
to preclude summary judgment. Id.
14
The
this
Court
case
as
finds
that
Defendant
Bachert
contends.
is
not
Unlike
^'on
all
this
fours"
action,
with
where
Plaintiff has maintained that he did not pull the trigger, the
plaintiff in Bachert attempted to manufacture a genuine issue of
fact to preclude summary judgment by submitting affidavits that
materially changed his story of the shooting. That issue is not
present in this case. Further, there is other evidence in this
case
from
which
a
jury
could
reasonably
determine
that
the
Shearouse gun was defective.
2. Belk^s treatment of alternative causes
Defendant contends that Belk's opinion is also unreliable
because Belk did not offer any "scientifically valid method to
rule-out that the rifle functioned precisely as intended on the
day of Plaintiff's shooting." {Doc. 35 at 16.) Defendant argues
that Belk's opinion must be excluded on this ground. The Court
disagrees.
First,
challenging
the
Court
Belk's
manufacturing
again
opinion
defect
or
notes
that
his
the
that
Defendant
Shearouse
opinions
gun
regarding
is
not
contains
the
a
design
defects. Defendant's own expert, Derek Watkins, testified in his
deposition that there are only four possible explanations of why
a
Remington Model 770
would fire. These explanations are: the
trigger was pulled, there was an improper post-sale alteration
to
the
rifle,
there
was
an
improper
15
post-sale
abuse
of
the
rifle,
or
that
there
was
a
defect
in
the
rifle.
(Doc.
37,
Attach. 2 at 13-15.) Watkins further testified that he did not
observe
any
alteration,
the
evidence
that
there
was
an
improper
post-sale abuse, or debris that
Shearouse
gun
to
fire
without
a
would
trigger
post-sale
have
pull.
caused
(Doc.
39,
Attach. 1 at 37.) Watkins ultimately stated that
I would say that if it [the Shearouse gun]
did fire without the trigger being pulled
and if it was being handled in a normal and
expected way, that there was some defect
possibly causing it, as long as we're not
talking out debris or poor maintenance or
other things getting in there causing an
issue that type of stuff.
(Id.)
Therefore,
the
two
possible
reasons
for
Plaintiff's
injuries are that he pulled the trigger and the Shearouse gun
operated as intended or that he did not pull the trigger and a
defect caused the rifle to fire. Plaintiff contends that he did
not
pull
cites
to
the
trigger.
the
(Doc.
deposition
of
50,
Attach.
Timothy
2 at
Ivey,
90.)
an
Defendant
officer
who
responded to scene when Plaintiff was shot, that Plaintiff told
Sergeant Ivey that he had the barrel of the Shearouse gun on top
of his foot and
pulled the trigger. (Doc. 35 at 15.) Sergeant
Ivey did testify that Plaintiff told him that the gun fired when
he pulled the trigger. (Doc. 50, Attach. 1 at 19.) However, as
stated. Plaintiff has sworn testimony that he did not pull the
trigger.
Thus,
causation
of
Plaintiff's
16
injury,
e.g.
whether
Plaintiff
pulled
the
trigger,
is
a
question
of
fact
to
be
resolved by the jury and not by this Court on summary judgment.
Ontario Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 275 Ga. 683, 687, 572 S.E.2d
533,
536
(2002)
{"[I]t is
axiomatic
that
questions
regarding
proximate cause are undeniably a jury question and may only be
determined
by
the
courts
in
plain
and
undisputed
cases.")
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, "it is
not the role of the district court to make
ultimate conclusions
as to the persuasiveness of the proffered evidence . . . Quite
the
contrary,
contrary
proof
^[v]igorous
evidence,
are
the
and
cross-examination,
careful
traditional
and
instruction
appropriate
presentation
on
the
means
of
burden
of
of
attacking
shaky but admissible evidence.' " Quiet Tech., 326 F.3d at 1341
(quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596, 113 S. Ct. at 2798).
II.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In conjunction with its motion to exclude the testimony of
Belk, Defendant argues that, without admissible expert opinion
testimony
on
the
element
of
causation.
Plaintiff
lacks
sufficient proof to take his case to trial and that Defendant is
entitled
Because
Court
to
the
denies
summary judgment
Court
denied
Defendant's
in
its
Defendant's
motion
issue.
17
for
favor.
motion
summary
(Doc.
to
35
at
exclude,
judgment
on
17.)
the
this
CONCLUSION
For
Motion
the
to
foregoing
Exclude
the
reasons,
the
Testimony
Court
and
DENIES
Causation
Defendant's
Opinion
of
Plaintiff's Liability Expert and Incorporated Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 32).
SO ORDERED this ' day of October 2019.
*
WILLIAM T. MOORE,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
18
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?