MALIK v. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY et al

Filing 118

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 97 Motion to Preclude; denying 106 Motion to Preclude. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 7/22/15. (sr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

RAHEEL MALIK,

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

v.

No. 2:10-cv-06371 (WHW-CLW)

COOPER TIRE AND RUBBER CO.
and ABC CORPS. 1-10,
Defendants.

Walls, Senior District Judge

In this products liability case involving an allegedly defective
tire, each party moves to
preclude the other’s tire expert under Daubert v. Merreti Dow Pharm
., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592
(1993). Neither party has requested a Daubert hearing. The decision
as to whether to hold a
Daubert hearing rests with the sound discretion of the district court.
See Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v.
Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999); Oddi v. Ford Motor Co.,
234 F.3d 136, 151-55 (3d Cir.
2000). A “hearing is not required where the District Court is presen
ted with a full record.”
Henry, 572 F. App’x at 119 (citing Oddi, 234 F.3d at 154 (“the
district court already had before
it the depositions and affidavits of the plaintiffs experts. Nothing
more was required.”)). The
Court finds that the expert reports and depositions in the record
are sufficient, and a hearing is
not necessary. Under fed. R. Civ. P. 78, both motions are denied.
An expert may testify to an opinion if (1) the testimony will
help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue; (2) the testimo
ny is based on sufficient facts
or data; (3) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
methods; and (4) the expert has
1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of
the case. See fed. R. Evid. 702;
see
also Hemy v. St. Croix Alumina, LLC, 572 F. App’x 114,
117 (3d Cir. 2014). A district cou
rt
must act as a gatekeeper, allowing the admission of expert
opinion testimony only if it meets
these criteria. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592. A court’s rejectio
n of expert testimony should be
the
exception rather than the rule. Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory
Committee Note. “[V]igorous cro
ssexamination, presentation of contrary evidence, and care
ful instruction on the burden of pro
of
are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky
but admissible evidence.” Dauber
t,
509 U.s. at 595.
The Court has reviewed the CVs of the two tire experts
here, Dennis Carison and Joseph
Grant. Both have relevant technical education and decades
of practical experience. As many
other courts have done, this Court finds them both to be qual
ified.
In the Court’s earlier opinion on punitive damages, the
Court reviewed the design defect
theories advanced by Carison, which gain support from mem
os authored by Defendant’s
employees. Court’s Op. 2-3, 7-9, ECF No. 100. Carlson’s
report states his measurements and
observations, along with the outside research he consulted
. Expert Report of Dennis Carison,
Ex.
A to O’Hara Deci., ECF No. 106-4. Carison’s explanations for
his three manufacturing defect
theories find a basis in these measurements, the testimony
of other engineers, and published
papers. See Carison Deci. ¶J39-58, ECF No. 114-1. Finding
Carison’s methods to be reliable
and
helpful to the finder of fact, the Court will not exclude his
opinions as to the causes of the trea
d
and top belt separation on the subject tire, or as to the pra
cticality and feasibility of alternative
designs, which have been employed by other manufacturers.
See, e.g., Court’s Op. at 3, ECF No.
100 (citing an internal memo from Defendant noting that BEG
S “are used by most of our
competitors on a majority of their products”).

2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff moves to bar Joseph Grant from testifying on the grounds that he “never
performed any testing to support his opinions, [] intentionally ignored all of the testing and
analysis by Cooper, and his opinions are based on nothing more than speculation.” P1. ‘s Br.
6.
This mischaracteñzes Grant’s testimony and investigation. Grant examined the subject tire,
making visual observations and measurements with the aid of X-rays and a digital micros
cope.
Expert Report of Joseph Grant 6-9, Ex. E to Mazie Decl., ECF No. 97-4. He cites suffici
ent
technical literature to support his conclusions. Id. 13-21; Aff. of Joseph L. Grant, ECF No.
1042. That his conclusions may conflict with opinions expressed in Defendant’s internal docum
ents
or with those of Carlson, is a matter of weight rather than admissibility.
The Court declines to exclude the testimony of either expert. The fact-finding jury
will
determine which explanation for the subject tire’s failure is appropriate.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs motion, ECF No. 97, and Defendant’s motion, ECF No. 106, are denied.

DATE:
H
illi
United Sttes-S1or District Judge
.

3

.