Aidini v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Filing 81

ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 53 Motion in Limine to exclude plaintiff's premises liability expert or in the alternative to limit his testimony to opinions included in his report. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/5/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

ARTANO AIDINI,

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:15-cv-00505-APG-GWF
Plaintiff,

v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION IN
LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S
PREMISES LIABILITY EXPERT OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO LIMIT
HIS TESTIMONY TO OPINIONS
INCLUDED IN HIS REPORT
(ECF No. 53)

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation seeks to exclude plaintiff Artano Aidini’s

12

premises liability expert, David Elliott, from testifying or, alternatively, to limit his testimony to

13

the opinions expressed in his report. Costco argues that Elliott’s opinions do not assist the trier of

14

fact because his opinion that a cardboard box on a polished concrete floor is slippery is common

15

sense and not the subject of expert opinion. Alternatively, Costco asserts that Aidini’s expert

16

designation indicated Elliott was an expert in human factors but did not include any such opinions

17

in his report, so he should not be able to offer opinions on human factors at trial.

18

Aidini responds that Elliott used scientific methods commonly used by safety engineers to

19

evaluate the average slip resistance of cardboard boxes on Costco’s floor surface. Aidini does not

20

respond to Costco’s argument that Elliott should not be permitted to testify about human factors.

21

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits testimony based on “scientific, technical, or other

22

specialized knowledge” by experts qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or

23

education” if the testimony is both relevant and reliable. The trial court acts as a “gatekeeper” to

24

exclude expert testimony that is not both relevant and reliable. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v.

25

Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999). Testimony is relevant if it will “help the trier of fact to

26

understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed .R. Evid. 702(a); see also Daubert v.

27

Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1315 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating testimony is relevant if it

28

1

“logically advances a material aspect of the proposing party’s case”). To be helpful to the jury,

2

the testimony must be “‘tied to the facts’” of the particular case. Daubert v. Merrell Dow

3

Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 591 (1993) (quoting United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1242

4

(3d Cir. 1985)).

5

Elliott’s opinions about the slip resistance of the Costco floor when covered with

6

cardboard boxes is relevant because it advances Aidini’s argument that the box on the floor that

7

he slipped on created a hazardous condition. Although Costco contends that it is common sense

8

that a cardboard box on a concrete floor will make it slippery, there are different types of concrete

9

surfaces and different levels of slipperiness. Elliott uses scientific principles and testing, the

10

reliability of which Costco does not challenge, to evaluate the slip resistance of Costco’s floor

11

when a cardboard box is lying on top of it. That information is both relevant and helpful to the

12

trier of fact in this slip and fall case. I therefore deny Costco’s motion to exclude Elliott.

13

Aidini does not respond to Costco’s argument that Elliott’s trial testimony should be

14

limited to the opinions expressed in his report. I therefore grant that portion of Costco’s motion

15

as unopposed. See LR 7-2(d). This is consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16

26(a)(2)(B)(i)’s requirement that an expert report contain “a complete statement of all opinions

17

the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.”

18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s motion

19

in limine to exclude plaintiff’s premises liability expert or in the alternative to limit his testimony

20

to opinions included in his report (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

21

DATED this 5th day of April, 2017.

22
23
24

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2