Stratton v. Thompson/Center Arms et al
Filing
210
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 149 MOTION IN LIMINE -granting in part and denying in part 149 Motion in Limine; Motions terminated: 149 Plaintiff's MOTION in Limine re Townsend filed by Zane Stratton. See Order for details. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 8/26/22. (jrj)
Case 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK Document 210 Filed 08/29/22 PageID.5492 Page 1 of 5
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
ZANE STRATTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS, INC, and
DOES I-X,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
[149] MOTION IN LIMINE
Case No. 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK
District Judge David Nuffer
Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler
Plaintiff Zane Stratton has filed a Motion to Limit the Testimony of Defense Expert Brad
Townsend (“Motion”), arguing that Mr. Townsend’s proposed testimony on Mr. Stratton’s
economic damages goes beyond Mr. Townsend’s qualifications and should therefore be
precluded. 1 Defendant Thompson/Center Arms (“Thompson”) filed a response, arguing that Mr.
Townsend is testifying based off his economic expertise. 2 Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the
Motion. 3 For the following reasons, the Motion will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. Mr. Townsend may testify, based on his economic expertise, that Mr. Stratton has not
experienced an earning impairment at this time. However, Mr. Townsend may not testify to
whether Mr. Stratton has actually suffered a vocational impairment, or whether he will suffer a
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Limit the Testimony of Defense Expert Brad Townsend, docket no. 149, fled
December 10, 2021.
1
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Limit the Testimony of Defense Expert Brad Townsend, docket no.
168, filed January 26, 2022.
2
Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Limit the Testimony of Defense Expert Brad
Townsend, docket no. 176, filed February 8, 2022.
3
Case 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK Document 210 Filed 08/29/22 PageID.5493 Page 2 of 5
vocational impairment in the future. Mr. Townsend may also not testify to whether Mr. Stratton
will suffer an earnings impairment in the future.
Much of Mr. Townsend’s report deals with his criticism of the economic analysis of
Plaintiff’s vocational experts. So long as Mr. Townsend is not opining on Mr. Stratton’s actual
ability to work, but instead opining on the purported economic flaws in the vocational experts’
economic analysis, this order does not affect those opinions. However, an order entered
concurrently removes most of the issues Mr. Townsend raises regarding Plaintiff’s vocational
experts’ testimony about Mr. Stratton’s worklife expectancy. 4
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of injuries Mr. Stratton suffered resulting from a muzzleloading
rifle explosion in Cedar City, Utah in September 2017. Mr. Townsend was retained by
Thompson to offer testimony on Mr. Stratton’s economic losses and opine on other experts’
economic opinions. 5
DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and Daubert, 6 an expert must be “qualified by
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education’ to render an opinion. 7 Once an expert has
been established as qualified in a subject area, he “must testify within the reasonable confines of
his subject area.” 8
Memorandum Decision and Order Limiting Testimony by Vocational Experts, docket no. 208, filed August 26,
2022.
4
5
Defendant’s Updated Disclosure of Expert Testimony, docket no. 131, filed May 5, 2021, at 5.
6
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
7
Ralston v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 275 F.3d 965, 969 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702).
8
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Deere & Co., 115 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1303 (D. Kan. 2015).
2
Case 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK Document 210 Filed 08/29/22 PageID.5494 Page 3 of 5
Mr. Townsend has been offered by Thompson as an economic expert and an expert in
forensic accounting. 9 Plaintiff does not challenge his expertise in these areas. Instead, Plaintiff
argues that Mr. Townsend’s opinions concerning the accident’s effects on Mr. Stratton’s income
go beyond his qualifications. Plaintiff’s arguments are mostly unpersuasive.
Mr. Townsend is well qualified in the field of forensic accounting and economics. Most
of his proposed testimony is rooted within this field. Plaintiff argues that Mr. Townsend is
opining that Mr. Stratton has a work disability. That characterization of Mr. Townsend’s
anticipated testimony appears inaccurate. Instead, Mr. Townsend’s testimony largely concerns
whether there is financial evidence of any type of past earning impairment. 10 These opinions,
which Mr. Townsend bases on a review of Mr. Stratton’s past earnings, are well within the field
of forensic accounting. If Plaintiff feels that Mr. Townsend’s testimony on Mr. Stratton’s earning
impairments unduly strays into the field of vocational rehabilitation, such arguments are better
explored on cross-examination than in a motion to exclude.
If Mr. Townsend intends to testify to Mr. Stratton’s actual ability to work, now and in the
future, that testimony is beyond the scope of his expertise. That testimony would require
expertise in the field of vocational rehabilitation or medicine, which Mr. Townsend readily
concedes are fields he is not qualified in. 11 Mr. Townsend also agrees that he is not qualified to
prospectively determine whether Mr. Stratton will have an earning impairment in the future. 12
Certain parts of Mr. Townsend’s reports do appear to go to Mr. Stratton’s actual ability to
work, as opposed to whether he historically has had an earning impairment. In his report, Mr.
9
Defendant’s Updated Disclosure of Expert Testimony at 5.
10
See Townsend Report, Exhibit D to Motion, docket no. 149-4, filed December 10, 2021.
Deposition of R. Brad Townsend dated June 24, 2021 (“Townsend Depo.”), Exhibit C to Motion, docket no. 1493, filed December 10, 2021, at 7:19-8:22.
11
12
Townsend Depo. at 8:23-9:10; 15:21-16:20.
3
Case 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK Document 210 Filed 08/29/22 PageID.5495 Page 4 of 5
Townsend opines that Mr. Stratton has “demonstrated no such reduced ability to work,” 13 that
Mr. Stratton has “adapted his work to fit his injury,” 14 and that there is “no reasonable basis at
this point in time to conclude he will incur a diminished work-life in the future.” 15 Mr.
Townsend also opines that the vocational evaluation of Mark Hedrick, Thompson’s vocational
expert, is “consistent with Mr. Stratton’s post-accident work habits and abilities.” 16 This
testimony goes beyond Mr. Townsend’s expertise in forensic economics. In other words, the
testimony goes beyond an opinion about a past earning impairment, and into whether Mr.
Stratton is actually vocationally impaired or will become impaired in the future. Therefore, Mr.
Townsend will be precluded from this testimony. Mr. Townsend also may not opine on whether
Mr. Stratton will have an earning impairment in the future, consistent with his averment that
such testimony is outside his area of expertise. 17
What Mr. Townsend specifically intends to offer criticizing Plaintiff’s vocational experts
is somewhat unclear at the moment, due to the recent order precluding much of their testimony.
On one hand, Mr. Townsend readily agrees that he is not qualified to testify to future earnings
loss, which is the primary function of the vocational experts’ testimony. 18 On the other hand,
most of the Vocational Experts’ testimony which deals with Mr. Stratton’s future loss of
earnings has been precluded, and we do not know if they will present permitted testimony. 19 Mr.
Townsend may offer criticism of the vocational experts’ remaining testimony, so long as he
13
Townsend Report at 4.
14
Id. at 6.
15
Id.
16
Id. at 4.
17
Townsend Depo. at 8:23-9:10; 15:21-16:20.
18
Townsend Depo. at 15:21-17:1; 18:6-23.
19
Memorandum Decision and Order Limiting Testimony by Vocational Experts, docket no. 208, filed August 26,
2022.
4
Case 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK Document 210 Filed 08/29/22 PageID.5496 Page 5 of 5
confines himself to their economic analysis and their opinions on Mr. Stratton’s prior earning
impairments. If his testimony at trial segues from the field of forensic economics into vocational
testimony, Plaintiff may raise an objection at that time.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that Mr. Townsend’s opinions are unreliable and speculative.
However, he raises this argument for the first time in the reply. 20 Therefore, consideration of this
argument is not appropriate. 21
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion 22 is DENIED IN PART and
GRANTED IN PART. Mr. Townsend may offer testimony on whether economic data shows that
Mr. Stratton has had an earning impairment. He may not testify that Mr. Stratton actually has (or
does not have) a vocational impairment, or whether he will have a vocational or earning
impairment in the future. He may opine on the economic models the Vocational Experts are
permitted to use, but he may not opine that those models do or do not show that Mr. Stratton will
have a future earnings impairment.
Dated August 26, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
20
Reply at 5.
21
Rodriguez v. Cascade Collections LLC, 532 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1119 (D. Utah 2021).
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Limit the Testimony of Defense Expert Brad Townsend, docket no. 149, filed
December 10, 2021.
22
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?