Munter v. Schmidt

Filing 79

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 22 Motion in Limine is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS ORDERED that Rick Ridley can testify for rule 803(6) purposes. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rick Ridley is precluded from testifying as an expert witness. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rick Ridley can testify as a lay witness. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 10/3/2018. (NOS)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
CV 17-21-BU-BMM
JENNIFER MUNTER a/k/a JENNY
MUNTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

MEAGAN SCHMIDT,
Defendant.

Defendant Meagan Schmidt filed a Motion to Exclude Rick Ridley on April
13, 2018. (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff Jennifer Munter filed her response on April 27, 2018.
(Doc. 31.) The Court held a motion hearing on June 7, 2018. (Doc. 43.) Trial is
presently scheduled for October 15, 2018, at the Mike Mansfield Courthouse in
Butte, Montana.
BACKGROUND
Schmidt and Munter were involved in a traffic accident in March 2014.
(Doc. 23 at 1.) Bozeman Ford repaired Schmidt’s vehicle. (Doc. 23 at 1.) Various
Bozeman Ford employees worked on Schmidt’s vehicle. (Doc. 23 at 1.) Rick
Ridley, who is presently employed by Bozeman Ford, was not one of those
employees. (Doc. 23 at 1-2.) Munter, nonetheless, seeks to call Ridley as a witness.

Ridley was deposed in March 2018. (Doc. 23 at 2.) Munter deposed Ridley
“individually as an employee of Bozeman Ford, not a corporate representative,”
pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). (Doc 23 at 3.) At the time of Ridley’s
deposition, Ridley had been employed by Bozeman Ford for four months. (Doc. 23
at 2.) Ridley personally has never seen Schmidt’s vehicle. (Doc. 23 at 3.) Ridley
also did not draft any documents related to the repair of Schmidt’s vehicle. (Doc.
23 at 3-4.) Munter provided Ridley with pictures of the damage to Schmidt’s
vehicle. (Doc. 31 at 2.) Munter also provided Ridley with the Bozeman Ford repair
invoice prepared following the repairs to Schmidt’s vehicle. (Doc. 31 at 1-2.)
Ridley’s deposition testimony focused on both the provided photographs and the
repair invoice. (Doc. 31 at 2.)
Munter has not disclosed Ridley as an expert witness. (Doc. 23 at 2.) Ridley
works as a mechanic. (Doc. 23 at 4.) Ridley has worked in the collision industry
for approximately forty years. (Doc. 31 at 2.) Ridley lacks any background,
however, in biomechanics or accident reconstruction. (Doc. 23 at 4.) Ridley lacks
the background to perform a crash analysis. (Doc. 23 at 4.)
Schmidt seeks to exclude Ridley from testifying. Schmidt contends that
Ridley lacks personal knowledge under Federal Rules of Evidence 602 and 701.
(Doc. 23 at 7.) Accordingly, Ridley cannot testify as a lay witness. (Doc. 23 at 7.)
Schmidt alternatively contends that Ridley cannot testify as an expert. (Doc. 23 at

7.) Schmidt first argues that Ridley cannot testify as an expert because Munter
failed to disclose Ridley as an expert witness. (Doc. 23 at 8.) Schmidt argues that
Ridley does not meet Daubert’s twin aims because Ridley’s testimony would be
irrelevant and his testimony “cannot bridge the gap between the damage to
Schmidt’s car and the forces in this accident.” (Doc. 23 at 8-13.)
Munter asserts that Ridley can testify as a lay witness because he meets the
requirements of Rules 602 and 701. (Doc. 31 at 3.) Munter argues that Ridley’s
deposition testimony was based on admissible evidence. Ridley testified about the
Bozeman Ford repair invoice. This repair invoice would be admissible as a
business record pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). (Doc. 31 at 3.)
Ridley testified about the damage to Schmidt’s vehicle and Munter’s vehicle based
on the photographs that Munter provided to Ridley. (Doc. 31 at 2-3.) Schmidt
admitted that those photographs depicted the damage to her vehicle. (Doc. 31 at 2.)
Munter further seeks to have Ridley testify about “the manner in which he
inspects vehicle damage and the type of frame construction of the Munter and
Schmidt vehicles.” (Doc. 31 at 5.) Munter argues that Ridley’s testimony would be
based on his personal knowledge and experience in the collision repair business.
(Doc. 31 at 5.) Munter concedes that Ridley cannot be called as an expert witness.
(Doc. 31 at 8.)

LEGAL STANDARD
A repair invoice would be admissible hearsay if it falls under the business
records exception under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). Rule 803(6) states that a
“record of an act, even, condition, opinion, or diagnosis” should be admitted if:
“(A) the record was made at or near the time by – or from information transmitted
by – someone with knowledge; (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly
conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or
not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all
these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified
witness, or by a certification complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute
permitting certification; and (E) the opponent does not show that the source of
information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of
trustworthiness.”
DISCUSSION
Schmidt contends, and Munter concedes, that Ridley cannot testify as an
expert pursuant to Rule 702. The Court agrees. Ridley is precluded from testifying
as an expert in these proceedings.
Ridley lacks firsthand knowledge, and he did not directly observe the
damage to Schmidt’s vehicle. As a result, Ridley also cannot testify as a lay
witness under Rule 602 or Rule 701.

Ridley will be able to testify as a qualified witness under Rule 803(6). Once
Ridley’s testimony satisfies the remaining prongs of the Rule 803(6) analysis, the
Bozeman Ford repair invoice will be admitted into evidence. Ridley will then be
allowed to testify based off the Bozeman Ford repair invoice. Ridley’s testimony
would be limited to whether Bozeman Ford repaired Schimdt’s vehicle, whether
the invoices reflect accurately the repair work performed on the vehicle, and
whether the photographs reflect the damage to Schmidt’s vehicle sustained in the
collision with Munter.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Schmidt’s Motion to Exclude Rick
Ridley (Doc. 22) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS ORDERED that Rick Ridley can testify for Rule 803(6) purposes.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rick Ridley is precluded from testifying
as an expert witness.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rick Ridley can testify as a lay witness.
DATED this 3rd day of October, 2018.