Gonzalez v. Sea Fox Boat Co Inc

Filing 456

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 297 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 456 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 14476

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. 297] filed by defendants and seeking
to limit or strike the expert report and testimony of plaintiff expert witnesses Joyce
Beckwith and John Theriot 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. 348.
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 456 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 14477

(“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
vocational rehabilitation expert Joyce Beckwith and economist John Theriot. Defendants
now move to exclude or limit Beckwith and Theriot’s anticipated testimony, arguing that
Beckwith’s opinions are speculative, based on unsupported medical opinions, and do not
satisfy Daubert with respect to her methodology or analysis. Doc. 297. They also assert
that Theriot’s opinions are unreliable, speculative and based on flawed data. Id. 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 5

Case 2:19-cv-00130-JDC-KK Document 456 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 14478

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
Defendants first challenge Joyce Beckwith’s anticipated testimony based on her
reliance on the medical opinions of Dr. Darrell Henderson. The court has rejected the
defense’s contentions that Dr. Henderson does not qualify as a treating physician. To the
extent that the defense finds his conclusions lack support, they may raise this issue in
challenging the weight of Beckwith’s testimony but the fact that she credited the opinion
of one of plaintiffs’ licensed burn treatment providers in formulating her own opinions
does not impact the admissibility of her testimony.

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 5

Case 2:19-cv-00130-JDC-KK Document 456 Filed 05/10/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 14479

Defendants also allege that Beckwith’s testimony is unreliable, noting conflicting
opinions from other physicians as to plaintiffs’ degree of disability, the fact that Gonzales
returned to his pre-accident job and only experienced a decrease in wages after moving
from Louisiana to Arkansas, and the opinion of defense vocational rehabilitation expert
that Outlaw-Knight could return to welding work within temperature-controlled
environments with no impact to his wages. Beckwith instead relied on Henderson’s opinion
that neither plaintiff should return to prior occupations, and that Gonzales is currently
working beyond his limitations. Accordingly, she assumed that Gonzales would be
required to return to minimum wage work if he were ever to leave the shelter of his current
job and reenter the workforce and that only minimum wage work is available to OutlawKnight given his current limitations. Theriot then calculated his lost earnings for both
plaintiffs, relying on Beckwith’s assumption with regard to Gonzales one day leaving his
current welding job.
As plaintiffs emphasize, experts are not prohibited from making assumptions under
Daubert. Barnes v. Commerce & Indus. Ins. Grp., 2013 WL 6145309, at *2 (W.D. La.
Nov. 21, 2013). The defense may challenge the soundness of these assumptions through
cross-examination. Beyond their disagreement with the assumptions above, the defense’s
challenges go to Beckwith’s decisions to credit one physician’s opinion over that of others
rather than her or Theriot’s methodology. These challenges go to the weight rather than
admissibility of testimony and do not serve as a basis for exclusion.

Page 4 of 5

Case 2:19-cv-00130-JDC-KK Document 456 Filed 05/10/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 14480

III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion in Limine [doc.
297] be DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 10th day of May, 2022.

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

Page 5 of 5