Hartzog v. Axxis Drilling, Inc., No. 2:2011cv01153 - Document 72 (E.D. La. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS denying 57 Motion in Limine to Strike, Limit, or Exclude Kenneth Boudreaux and Nancy Favaloro. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 8/7/12. (sek, )

Download PDF
Hartzog v. Axxis Drilling, Inc. Doc. 72 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA HARTZOG CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 11-1153 AXXIS DRILLING, INC. SECTION: "J”(2) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine to Strike, Limit, or Exclude Kenneth Boudreaux and Nancy Favaloro (Rec. Doc. 57), Defendant’s opposition to same (Rec. Doc. 65), and Plaintiff’s reply thereto (Rec. Doc. 68). Upon review of the record, the memoranda of counsel, and the applicable law, this Court now finds, for the reasons set forth below, that this motion should be DENIED. The purpose of Daubert is "to ensure that only reliable and relevant expert testimony is presented to the jury." Rushing v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 185 F.3d 496, 506 (5th Cir. 1999) (superseded by rule on other grounds), citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590-93 (1993). Thus, "[m]ost of the safeguards provided for in Daubert are not as Dockets.Justia.com essential in a case such as this where a district judge sits as the trier of fact in place of a jury." Gibbs v. Gibbs, 210 F.3d 491, 500 (5th Cir. 2000). “Daubert requires a binary choice--admit or exclude--and a judge in a bench trial should have discretion to admit questionable technical evidence, though of course he must not give it more weight than it deserves." SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 247 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1042 (N.D. Ill. 2003). Given that this case is a bench trial, and thus that the objectives of Daubert, upon which this motion is premised, are no longer implicated, the Court finds that the motion in limine to exclude expert testimony should be denied at this time. Following the introduction of the alleged expert testimony at trial, the Court will either exclude it at that point, or give it whatever weight it deserves. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion should be and is hereby DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana this 7th day of August, 2012. ____________________________ CARL J. BARBIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.