Bower v. El-Nady Bower et al

Filing 144

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered granting 134 Motion Preclude Expert Witness Testimony; granting 137 Motion in Limine (RGS, law3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-10405-RGS
COLIN BOWER
v.
MIRVAT EL-NADY and EGYPTAIR AIRLINES
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PARTIES CROSS-MOTIONS TO
PRECLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF EXPERT WITNESSES JAMEEL JOSEPH,
FATMA EL-HAMIDI, AND JEFFREY C. PRICE
November 10, 2011
STEARNS, D.J.
Plaintiff Colin Bower brought this action on his own behalf and as the guardian
and legal custodian of his two minor children after his ex-wife, defendant Mirvat ElNady, abducted their children in August of 2009 without his consent and in violation
of a court order granting full custody to Bower. Bower claims that EgyptAir, the airline
on which El-Nady flew with the children from New York to Egypt, is liable for
interference with Bower’s custodial relations, negligence, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, and loss of filial consortium. See Bower’s Am. Compl. (Dkt # 5).
The issue in this case is not whether EgyptAir violated a legal duty under federal
law to investigate potential terrorist activity or a duty under international law to divert
harm away from its passengers, its aircraft, or John F. Kennedy Airport. The issue

rather is whether EgyptAir owed a legal duty to Bower to investigate the possibility that
the two children traveling with their mother on an EgyptAir flight to Cairo were the
subject of a court order granting custody to Bower. The expert testimony both parties
propose might have relevance in a terrorist case, however, it has no bearing on any
potential legal duty in this case.
Mr. Joseph, Mr. Price, and Ms. El-Hamidi can offer no assistance in answering
this question. See United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1183 (1st Cir. 1993)
(“Because gauging an expert witness’s usefulness is almost always a case-specific
inquiry, the law affords trial judges substantial discretion in connection with the
admission or exclusion of opinion evidence.”).
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, both motions to preclude the experts’ witness
testimony are ALLOWED.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2