Gonzalez v. Sea Fox Boat Co Inc

Filing 455

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 294 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge James D Cain, Jr on 5/10/2022. (crt,Crick, S)

Case 2:19-cv-00130-JDC-KK Document 455 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 14472

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
HUGO GONZALEZ

CASE NO. 2:19-CV-00130 LEAD

VERSUS

JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

SEA FOX BOAT CO INC

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is a Motion in Limine [doc. 294] filed by defendants and seeking
to limit or strike the expert report and testimony of plaintiff expert witness Ruth Rimmer
under the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Plaintiffs Hugo Gonzalez and Galloway
Outlaw-Knight and Lauren M. Outlaw-Knight, all appearing individually and behalf of
their minor children, oppose the motion. Doc. 360.
I.

BACKGROUND
This suit arises from a maritime accident that occurred on or about July 29, 2018,
on a 2014 Sea Fox Commander vessel, while plaintiffs Jeremy Eades, Hugo Gonzales, and
Galloway Outlaw-Knight were changing out the vessel’s batteries. All three were seriously
injured in the explosion and resulting fire, and Eades has since died of mixed drug
intoxication. Plaintiffs have attributed the explosion to a leaking fuel water separator filter,
causing the presence of gasoline vapors on the vessel, and filed suits against Yamaha Motor
Corporation USA (“Yamaha”), as designer of the filter, and Sea Fox Boat Company, Inc.

Case 2:19-cv-00130-JDC-KK Document 455 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 14473

(“Sea Fox”), as designer/manufacturer of the vessel. Doc. 1. The matter is now set for jury
trial before the undersigned on May 16, 2022.
Plaintiffs have given notice of their intention to introduce expert testimony from
Ruth Rimmer, who prepared life care plans for Hugo Gonzales and Galloway OutlawKnight. Defendants now move to exclude or limit Rimmer’s anticipated testimony, arguing
that her conclusions are based on unsupported medical opinions (not cured by the
subsequent endorsement of another physician witness) and that without proper medical
support, her conclusions on future treatment and care needs will confuse and mislead the
jury. Doc. 294. The Gonzales and Outlaw-Knight plaintiffs oppose the motion. Doc. 360.
II.

A. Governing Law

LAW & APPLICATION

The trial court serves as gatekeeper in determining the admissibility of expert
testimony, by making an initial determination of whether the expert’s opinion is relevant
and reliable. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589. This gatekeeping function extends to all expert
testimony, whether scientific or not. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137,
147 (1999). Accordingly, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that the court must
consider the following three requirements on challenges to experts: 1) qualifications of the
expert witness; 2) relevance of the proposed testimony; and 3) reliability of the principles
and methodology on which the testimony is based. 1 The proponent of the expert testimony

The Daubert Court identified several additional factors for assessing whether the expert’s methodology is valid and
reliable, including whether the expert’s theory had been tested and subjected to peer review, the known or potential
error rate for the expert’s theory or technique, the existence and maintenance of standards and controls, and the degree
to which the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community. Moore v. Ashland Chemical,
1

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:19-cv-00130-JDC-KK Document 455 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 14474

bears the burden of proving its admissibility, by a preponderance of the evidence. Mathis
v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448, 459–60 (5th Cir. 2002).
The trial court has broad latitude in determining the admissibility of expert
testimony. Guy v. Crown Equip. Corp., 394 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2004). Rejection of
expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule, and the court’s role as gatekeeper
“does not replace the traditional adversary system and the place of the jury within the
system.” Johnson v. Samsung Electronics Am., Inc., 277 F.R.D. 161, 165 (E.D. La. 2011);
Scordill v. Louisville Ladder Grp., LLC, 2003 WL 22427981, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct. 24,
2003). Instead, “[v]igorous 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.” Scordill, 2003 WL 22427981 at *3 (quoting
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596).
B. Application
In her life care plans for Gonzales and Outlaw-Knight, Rimmer admits that she
relied on the medical opinions of Dr. Darrell Henderson, a plastic surgeon specializing in
the treatment of burns, in formulating her opinions on the cost of future care and treatment.
Doc. 294, atts. 2 & 3. Defendants argue that this reliance is insufficient because (1) Dr.
Henderson is not the treating physician of either plaintiff; and (2) despite his subsequent
endorsement of the life care plans in a one-paragraph letter, his contemporaneous

Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 275 (5th Cir. 1998). However, the same standards cannot be applied to all possible fields of
expertise. Accordingly, the Daubert analysis is necessarily flexible and fact-specific. Kumho, 526 U.S. at 150.

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:19-cv-00130-JDC-KK Document 455 Filed 05/10/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 14475

deposition revealed that his treatment recommendations (namely, on the need for future
laser treatment/surgery) differed from those outlined by Rimmer. See doc. 294, att. 8.
On the first argument, the court has rejected the defense’s contention that Dr.
Henderson is not a treating physician in its ruling on another motion in limine [doc. 279]
and adopts that reasoning here. On the second, the extent to which Rimmer’s treatment
recommendations conform with that of the treating physician with whom she consulted
impact the weight rather than admissibility of her testimony. The defense has admitted that
they have no quarrel with Rimmer’s qualifications as a life care planner. Both Dr.
Henderson and Rimmer will be available for cross-examination at trial and the defense may
probe the reasons for Dr. Henderson’s apparent shift in thinking and use any
inconsistencies in treatment recommendations to their advantage. However, these reasons
do not provide a basis for striking the report or excluding the testimony of plaintiffs’ life
care plan expert.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion in Limine [doc.
294] be DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 10th day of May, 2022.

__________________________________________
JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4