Price v. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, LLC

Filing 107

ORDER AND REASONS re 95 Plaintiff's Objections; ORDERED that plaintiff's objections to the deposition of Dr. John are SUSTAINED with respect to page 16, line 21 through page 17, line 4, and page 27, line 22 through page 28, line 1, and DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/10/2015.(blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RICHARD PRICE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-660

GREAT LAKES DREDGE AND DOCK
COMPANY, LLC

SECTION I

ORDER AND REASONS
The Court has received plaintiff’s written objections1 to portions of the deposition of Dr.
James T. John, and defendant’s opposition.2
First, the Court concludes that the majority of plaintiff’s objections, filed ten days before
trial, are essentially untimely Daubert-based objections regarding the admissibility of such expert
testimony. Defendant represents that Dr. John’s reports,3 based on his review of plaintiff’s medical
records, were produced to plaintiff on January 1, 2015.4 Plaintiff should have filed a Daubert motion
in sufficient time for submission on August 5, 2015.5
Alternatively, even if plaintiff had timely filed a Daubert-based motion, the Court would
deny such motion. The Court finds that plaintiff’s conclusory briefing does not establish that Dr.
John went beyond his qualifications as a specialist in occupational medicine when he rendered his

1

R. Doc. No. 95.
R. Doc. No. 100.
3
R. Doc. No. 100-3.
4
R. Doc. No. 100, at 2.
5
R. Doc. No. 47, at 1. In an August 26, 2015 order, the Court allowed the parties to submit Dr.
John’s deposition testimony and objections thereto by September 4, 2015. R. Doc. No. 71. The
deadline for filing motions regarding the admissibility of expert testimony had already lapsed on
August 5, however, and such order cannot reasonably be construed as authorizing an untimely
Daubert motion.
2

1

opinions regarding the nature and symptoms of plaintiff’s medical condition.6 Dr. John was crossexamined by plaintiff’s counsel during the deposition and it is clear to the Court that plaintiff’s
objections to the admissibility of certain portions of Dr. John’s testimony go to the weight that the
jury should assign to such testimony. Plaintiff’s other complaints regarding Dr. John’s testimony
were addressed by counsel’s cross-examination.
Second, with respect to non-Daubert-based objections, the Court rules as follows. In light
of the Court’s finding that plaintiff’s urinalysis test results are admissible, the Court finds that the
brief lines of questioning regarding those results are admissible. The Court finds that plaintiff’s
objections to the form of questions should be sustained in part with respect to the portions of the
deposition at page 16, line 21 through page 17, line 4, and page 27, line 22 through page 28, line 1.
As to objected to evidence which objections have been overruled by the Court, the Court
specifically finds that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, a confusion of the issues, and a misleading of the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to the deposition of Dr. John are SUSTAINED
with respect to page 16, line 21 through page 17, line 4, and page 27, line 22 through page 28, line
1, and DENIED in all other respects.
New Orleans, Louisiana, September 10, 2015.
________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

See R. Doc. No. 100-1, at 5-9.
2