Sanders v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, LLC et al
Filing
48
ORDER AND REASONS granting 41 Motion to Exclude Testimony of David H. Scruton. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm)
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WILLIAM SANDERS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 15-1745
OFFSHORE SPECIALTY
FABRICATORS, LLC, ET AL
SECTION: “H”(1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of David H.
Scruton. Defendant retained Mr. Scruton as an expert witness to opine on
issues of liability. Plaintiff argues that his opinions should be excluded under
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 because his opinions are not helpful to the Court
and the matters in dispute can be ascertained by the trier of fact through
common sense.
The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of
Evidence 702, which provides as follows:
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
1
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.
The current version of Rule 702 reflects the Supreme Court's decisions in
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,1 and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael.2
The threshold inquiry is whether the expert possesses the requisite
qualifications to render opinion on a particular subject matter. 3
Having
defined the permissible scope of the expert's testimony, a court next inquires
whether the opinions are reliable and relevant.4 In undertaking this tripartite
analysis, courts must give proper deference to the traditional adversary system
and the role of the finder of fact within that system.5
“Vigorous cross-
examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the
burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky
but admissible evidence.”6 As the “gatekeeper” of expert testimony, the trial
court enjoys broad discretion in determining admissibility.7
Expert testimony should be disallowed where the trier of fact can
“adeptly assess this situation using only their common experience and
knowledge.”8
The Court has reviewed Mr. Scruton’s expert report and finds
that it offers nothing beyond common-sense conclusions regarding this rather
509 U.S. 579 (1993).
526 U.S. 137 (1999).
3 Wagoner v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 813 F. Supp. 2d 771, 799 (E.D. La. 2011); see also
Wilson v. Woods, 163 F.3d 935, 937 (5th Cir. 1999) ("A district court should refuse to allow
an expert witness to testify if it finds that the witness is not qualified to testify in a particular
field or on a given subject.").
4 See United States v. Valencia, 600 F.3d 389, 424 (5th Cir. 2010).
5 See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596.
6 Id.
7 Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P., 716 F.3d 867, 881 (5th Cir. 2013).
8 Peters v. Five Star Marine Serv., 898 F.2d 448, 450 (5th Cir. 1990).
1
2
2
basic slip and fall case. Plaintiff has summarized the issues presented as
follows: “whether it was unreasonably dangerous for safety glasses to be
present on the stairs and if so, whether the defendant is responsible for the
resulting accident and injuries sustained by Sanders.” This Court agrees and
finds that an expert is not needed to resolve these issues. None of the opinions
reached in the report require specialized knowledge. Indeed, at several points
Mr. Scruton openly questions Plaintiff’s veracity. Such questions of fact are
reserved for the finder of fact and are beyond the appropriate scope of expert
testimony. This case involves Plaintiff’s allegation that he slipped and fell
while descending the stairs on Defendant’s vessel.
The facts of this case
present no unusual or unique issues requiring specialized knowledge to
understand. Because Scruton’s opinion testimony is not helpful to the trier of
fact, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 28th day of October, 2016.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?