Ratliff v. Seadrill Americas, Inc.

Filing 45

ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the 21 motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony of Plaintiff Eddie J. Ratliff's proposed safety expert Gregg S. Perkin, filed by Defendant Seadrill Americas, Inc., be and hereby is DENIED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EDDIE J. RATLIFF,
Plaintiff

CIVIL DOCKET

VERSUS

NO. 17-11581

SEADRILL AMERICAS, INC.,
Defendant

SECTION: “E” (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony of Plaintiff
Eddie J. Ratliff’s proposed safety expert Gregg S. Perkin, filed by Defendant Seadrill
Americas, Inc. (“Seadrill”).1 For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND2
On August 19, 2017, Plaintiff Eddie J. Ratliff was employed by Defendant as a
Jones Act seaman on the M/V WEST VELA.3 Plaintiff claims he injured his back while
working aboard the M/V WEST VELA.4 He alleges he was instructed to remove an intake
valve seat from a mud pump module, which required him to maintain an awkward body
position for an hour to an hour and a half.5 He alleges he “experience[ed] pain in his back
from maintaining an awkward position for so long.”6 Plaintiff states that, when he was
instructed to perform the routine task of picking up a 30–50 pound metal bar, he “felt a
pop in his lower back and fell to the ground in pain.”7

R. Doc. 21.
The facts in this section are undisputed unless noted otherwise.
3 R. Doc. 1 at 2, ¶ 3; R. Doc. 9 at 1.
4 R. Doc. 20-6 at 1, ¶ 1; R. Doc. 32 at 1, ¶ 1.
5 R. Doc. 32 at 2–4, ¶¶ 6–20.
6 Id. at 4, ¶ 23.
7 Id. at 5, ¶ 26.
1

2

1

In the expert report of Plaintiff’s proposed safety expert Perkin, Perkin expresses
the opinion that Defendant did not adhere to its internal procedure for changing the mud
pump valve and that Defendant was responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries. 8 His report
includes detailed opinions about the proper procedure for the operation.9
On November 13, 2018, Defendant filed the instant motion. 10 It argues that
Perkin’s testimony should be excluded because it is irrelevant and involves matters easily
within the knowledge or experience of lay people. 11 Defendant argues a jury can
understand “the mechanics of lifting a metal bar” without expert testimony.12 It argues
there is no evidence Plaintiff’s work on the mud pump was related to his injury, and
Perkin’s testimony on that issue is irrelevant.13 Plaintiff opposes.14
On December 12, 2018, the Court denied a motion for summary judgment filed by
Defendant and found genuine issues of material fact as to whether Plaintiff’s work on the
mud pump caused his injury.15
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits an expert witness with “scientific, technical
or other specialized knowledge” to testify if such testimony “will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,” so long as (1) “the testimony is
based upon sufficient facts or data,” (2) “the testimony is the product of reliable principles

R. Doc. 21-2 at 31–33.
Id.
10 R. Doc. 21.
11 R. Doc. 21-1 at 1.
12 Id. at 2.
13 Id.
14 R. Doc. 27.
15 R. Doc. 44 at 8.
8
9

2

and methods,” and (3) “the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the
facts of the case.”16
In its motion, Defendant presumes Plaintiff’s claim is based solely on Defendant’s
requiring him to lift the metal bar. 17 Defendant’s premise is incorrect. Plaintiff alleges
that, before he was told to lift the bar, he was required to maintain an awkward body
position for an hour to an hour and a half while attempting to remove an intake valve seat
from a mud pump module.18 The Court finds Perkin’s testimony about the safety issues
tied to changing mud pump valves is relevant and will be helpful to the jury. Such
testimony falls outside the scope of lay knowledge.
While an expert witness is permitted to give his opinions on an “ultimate issue” of
fact, assuming he is qualified to do so, he is not permitted to offer conclusions of law.19
Federal Rule of Evidence 704 clarifies that an opinion is not objectionable merely because
it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.20 However, the Fifth Circuit
has repeatedly held that Rule 704 does not authorize experts to render legal opinions or
reach legal conclusions.21 Moreover, testimony that tells the jury what conclusion to reach
or merely states a legal conclusion is not helpful to the jury.22

FED. R. EVID. 702.
R. Doc. 21-1 at 2.
18 R. Doc. 32 at 4, ¶¶ 18–19.
19 FED. R. EVID. 704.
20 Id.
21 See, e.g., Goodman v. Harris Cnty., 571 F.3d 388, 399 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. $9,041,598.68,
163 F.3d 238, 255 (5th Cir. 1998); Snap-Drape, Inc. v. C.I.R., 98 F.3d 194, 198 (5th Cir. 1996); Owen v.
Kerr-McGee, 698 F.2d 236, 239 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Lackey v. SDT Waste and Debris Servs., LLC, No.
11-1087, 2014 WL 3866465, at *7–8 (E.D. La. Aug. 6, 2014) (“It is the job of the Court—not the expert—to
instruct the jury on the applicable law). See Askanase v. Fatjo, 130 F.3d 657, 673 (5th Cir. 1997) (“[O]ur
legal system reserves to the trial judge the role of deciding the law for the benefit of the jury.”).
22 See, e.g., Snap-Drape, 98 F.3d at 197–98 (noting that certain expert reports improperly contained legal
conclusions, which “would be of no assistance in making findings of fact”); Metrejean v. REC Marine
Logistics, L.L.C., No. 08-5049, 2009 WL 3062622, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 21, 2009) (citing Burkhart v.
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 112 F.3d 1207, 1212 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“‘Expert testimony that
consists of legal conclusions cannot properly assist the trier of fact’ in understanding evidence or
determining facts in issue.”)).
16
17

3

The Court reminds the parties that an expert is not permitted to give his opinion
on legal conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, nor may an expert usurp the role of
the Court to instruct the jury on the law.23 Perkin does not appear to have any formalized
training or particular experience with the law. Perkin will not be permitted to testify on
the applicable law, nor may he give legal conclusions concerning the ultimate legal issue
of whether Seadrill was negligent.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion in limine to exclude
the expert testimony of Plaintiff Eddie J. Ratliff’s proposed safety expert Gregg S. Perkin,
filed by Defendant Seadrill Americas, Inc., be and hereby is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of December, 2018.
____________
______ ________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23

FED. R. EVID. 704; Owen, 698 F.2d at 240; Lackey, 2014 WL 3866465, at *7–8.

4