BNSF Railway Company v. Quad City Testing Laboratory

Filing 139

ORDER denying 110 Defendant's Motion in Limine re Kenneth Smith Testimony. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 10/28/2010. (EMA)

BNSF Railway Company v. Quad City Testing Laboratory

Doc. 139

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA B I L L I N G S DIVISION B N S F RAILWAY COMPANY, ) ) P l a i n t if f s , ) ) vs. ) ) ) Q U A D CITY TESTING ) L A B O R A T O R Y , INC. ) ) D e f e nd a n t . ) ______________________________ ) C V -0 7 -1 7 0 -B L G -R F C

ORDER

P re s e ntly before the Court is Defendant Quad City Testing Laboratory, Inc.'s M o tio n in Limine seeking to exclude the testimony of Kenneth Smith [doc. #110]. STANDARD OF REVIEW M o tio ns in limine are procedural devices to obtain an early and preliminary ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Judges have broad discretion when ruling on mo tio ns in limine. See Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th C ir.2 0 0 2 ). However, a motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual d is p ute s or weigh evidence. C & E Services, Inc., v. Ashland Inc., 539 F.Supp.2d 3 1 6 , 323 (D.D.C.2008). To exclude evidence on a motion in limine "the evidence

1

Dockets.Justia.com

must be inadmissible on all potential grounds." Ind. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F.S up p .2 d 844, 846 (N.D.Ohio 2004); Kiswani v. Phoenix Sec. Agency, Inc., 247 F.R .D . 554 (N.D.Ill.2008); Wilkins v. K-Mart Corp., 487 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1218-19 (D .K a n.2 0 0 7 ). "Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary rulings s ho uld be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential p re jud ic e may be resolved in proper context." Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Tech, In c ., 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D.Ill.1993). This is because although rulings on mo tio ns in limine may save "time, costs, effort and preparation, a court is almost a lw a ys better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of e vid e nc e ." Wilkins, 487 F.Supp.2d at 1219. It is settled law that rulings on motions in limine are provisional. Such " rulings are not binding on the trial judge [who] may always change his mind during the course of a trial." Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n. 3 (2000); accord L u c e v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984). "Denial of a motion in limine does no t necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted to trial. Denial merely means that without the context of trial, the court is unable to d e te rmine whether the evidence in question should be excluded." Ind. Ins. Co. v. G e n . Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d at 846.

2

ANALYSIS D e fe nd a nt Quad City Testing seeks to exclude the testimony of Kenneth S mith for the reason that Mr. Smith lacks the requisite qualifications for an expert a nd Mr. Smith's opinions are irrelevant. Rulings on the admissibility of expert testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 702 are in the sound discretion of the trial court. General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 1 1 8 S.Ct. 512, 517, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). Rule 702, Fed.R.Evid., allows te s timo ny concerning "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" by a q ua lifie d expert if it will "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to d e te rmine a fact in issue." T he objective of the "gatekeeping" requirement in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Ph a r m a c e u tic a ls , 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993), is to ensure the reliability and re le va nc y of expert testimony; it is to make certain that an expert, whether basing te s timo ny upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the c o urtro o m the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an e xp e rt in the relevant field. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1 9 9 9 ). The trial judge must make a reliability determination on the record to fulfill the "gatekeeping" function. Mukhtar v. Cal. State Univ., Hayward, 299 F.3d 1053, 1 0 6 6 (9th Cir. 2002), amended by 319 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing
3

cases where the district court made "explicit findings of reliability," from cases w he re there was a "complete failure to make any reliability finding"). T he Federal Rules of Evidence impose on trial courts a "gatekeeping" o b liga tio n to ensure that expert testimony is relevant and reliable. United States v. H a n k e y , 203 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2000). Trial courts have substantial d is c re tio n in performing this function. Id. "[R]ejection of expert testimony is the e xc e p tio n rather than the rule." Fed.R.Evid. 702 Advisory Committee Notes (2 0 0 0 ). Where an expert satisfies the Rule 702 standards, cross-examination is the p ro p e r method of challenging the expert's opinions. See e.g. U.S. Fidelity and G u a r . Co. v. Soco West, Inc., 2006 WL 5230019 (D. Mont. 2006). T he issues in this case center upon a mechanical sand crane at BNSF's diesel s ho p in Havre, Montana and the inspection of said crane. Mr. Smith's Curriculum V ita e establishes that he has over 30 years of experience designing and engineering me c ha nic a l systems; he has performed failure analysis of a variety of mechanical s ys te ms ; he has investigated numerous different types of accidents, including, but no t limited to industrial accidents; he has performed mechanical design and analysis fo r product development and industry safety (OSHA) investigations; and he has p ro vid e d reports and expert testimony in courts and at depositions regarding such is s ue s as accident investigation, work place safety issues, and personal injury
4

matters. Mr. Smith's testimony will aid the jury in understanding mechanical d e s ign, failure analysis, safety and cranes. This will assist the jury in understanding the evidence and in determining a fact in issue. M r. Smith has a Bachelor of Science in Naval Architecture from the U.S. N a va l Academy and a Master of Science in Engineering from the University of M ic higa n. He is also a licensed Professional Engineer in two states and a member o f both the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the National Society of P ro fe s s io na l Engineers. The Court finds that based on Smith's extensive e xp e rie nc e , his opinions are sufficiently reliable under Daubert. Cross examination is the proper method of attacking Mr. Smith's opinions. D e fe nd a nt' s Motion in Limine re: Kenneth Smith [doc. # 110] is DENIED. The Clerk shall notify the parties of the making of this order. DATED this 28th day of October, 2010. /s/ Richard F. Cebull RICHARD F. CEBULL U . S. DISTRICT JUDGE

5