Cudd Pumping Services Inc v. Coastal Chemical L L C et al

Filing 124

ORDER denying 45 Motion in Limine; denying 46 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Elizabeth E Foote on 9/9/2014. (crt,Keifer, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

CUDD PUMPING SERVICES, INC.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-cv-1913

VERSUS

JUDGE ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE

COASTAL CHEMICAL CO., LLC et al

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK HORNSBY

ORDER
Before the Court are the following two motions, both filed by Plaintiff Cudd
Pumping Services Inc. (“Cudd”): Motion in Limine to Limit the Testimony of Coastal's
Expert Derek Nolen [Record Document 45] and Motion in Limine to Limit the Testimony
of Coastal's Expert Nestor J. Camara [Record Document 46]. Coastal Chemical Co.,
L.L.C. (“Coastal”) filed a response to each motion [Record Documents 62 and 60,
respectively], and Cudd likewise filed replies to each [Record Documents 76 and 78,
respectively].
Collectively, the two motions seek to limit the testimony of Coastal’s experts, by
asking the Court to act as the pretrial arbiter of potentially conflicting opinions, which
should more properly be weighed by the finder of fact at trial. As the Supreme Court
acknowledged in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 596
(1993), the district court’s role as a gatekeeper does not replace the traditional
adversary system and the place of the jury within the system. “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.” Id. In determining the admissibility of expert testimony, the Fifth
Circuit has added that a district court must defer to “the jury's role as the proper arbiter
of disputes between conflicting opinions.” United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land, More or

Less Situated in Leflore County, Miss. , 80 F.3d 1074, 1077 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting
Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co. , 826 F.2d 420, 422 (5th Cir. 1987)). “As a general rule,
questions relating to the bases and sources of an expert's opinion affect the weight to
be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility and should be left for the jury's
consideration.” Id.
Upon due consideration, the Court finds that each of these motions seeks to
unnecessarily limit the opinion of a Coastal expert prior to trial. Counsel for Cudd
should pursue the underlying arguments via the traditional mechanisms of the
adversary system during trial. Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES the motions
[Record Documents 45 and 46].
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana this 9th day of September,
2014.

_____________________________
Elizabeth Erny Foote
United States District Judge