Ladnier v. REC Marine Logistics, LLC et al, No. 2:2014cv01278 - Document 56 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting 37 Motion in Limine and Stephen Syson is precluded from offering his proposed expert testimony at the trial of this matter. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ladnier v. REC Marine Logistics, LLC et al Doc. 56 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A D ARRELL D . LAD N IER, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 14 -12 78 REC MARIN E LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 4 ) ORD ER Before the Court is a m otion in lim ine filed by Defendant Safety & Training Consultants, LLC, to exclude the expert report and proposed testim ony of Stephen R. Syson. 1 Plaintiff Darrell D. Ladnier opposes the m otion. 2 The Court has considered the briefs, the record, and the applicable law and now issues its ruling. For the reasons that follow, the m otion in lim ine is GRAN TED . BACKGROU N D This m atter involves personal injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff Darrell Ladn ier (“Ladnier”) during a Helicopter Underwater Escape Trainin g (“HUET”) exercise at a facility owned and operated by Defen dant Safety & Training Consultants, LLC. 3 Ladn ier was sent to the training exercise by his em ployer, REC Marine Logistics, LLC. 4 During the training, Ladnier was seated inside a helicopter sim ulator, which was inverted in a pool as part of the exercise. 5 Ladnier conten ds his safety belt failed to operate properly while the sim ulator was inverted, thereby trapping him underwater and causing him to struggle to escape. 6 Ladnier claim s he sustained injuries to his right shoulder as a result 1 R. Doc. 37. R. Doc. 40 . 3 R. Doc. 1 at 2; R. Doc. 37-1 at 5. 4 R. Doc. 1 at 2– 3; R. Doc. 37-1 at 5. 5 R. Doc. 1 at 2; R. Doc. 37-1 at 5– 6. 6 R. Doc. 1 at 2; R. Doc. 37-1 at 5– 6. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com of the incident. 7 Due to the injuries he allegedly sustained, Ladnier filed this lawsuit on J une 3, 20 14, against his em ployer, REC Marine Logistics, LLC (“REC Marine”), an d Safety & Training Consultants, LLC (“STC”). 8 Ladnier’s principal claim is that his rightshoulder injuries were caused by the negligen ce of STC and REC Marine. 9 On J une 5, 20 15, STC filed the instant m otion in lim ine, seeking to exclude the proposed testim ony of Stephen Syson, a purported expert witness retained by Ladnier. 10 STC argues Syson’s proposed expert testim ony should be excluded because it (1) “will not assist the trier of fact;” (2) is “not based upon sufficient facts or data;” and (3) is “not the product of reliable principles and m ethods reliably applied to the facts of the case.”11 It is this m otion which is presently before the Court for decision. LEGAL STAN D ARD The Federal Rules of Evidence perm it an expert witness with “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge” to testify if such testim ony “will help the trier of fact to understand the eviden ce or to determ ine a fact in issue,” so long as “the testim ony is based upon sufficient facts or data,” “the testim ony is the product of reliable prin ciples and m ethods,” and “the expert has reliably applied the principles and m ethods to the facts of the case.”12 The United States Suprem e Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm aceuticals, Inc., provides the analytical fram ework for determ ining whether expert testim ony is adm issible under Rule 70 2. 13 Under the Daubert fram ework, district courts serve as “gatekeepers,” tasked with m aking a prelim inary assessm ent of whether the 7 R. Doc. 37-1 at 5– 6. See also R. Doc. 1 at 2. See generally R. Doc. 1. 9 R. Doc. 1 at 2– 3. 10 See generally R. Doc. 37-1. 11 R. Doc. 37-1 at 5. 12 F ED . R. E VID . 70 2. 13 50 9 U.S. 579 (1993). 8 2 proffered expert testim ony is both reliable and relevant. 14 The party offering the expert opinion m ust show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the expert’s testim ony satisfies Daubert and is both reliable an d relevant. 15 The reliability of expert testim ony “is determ ined by assessing whether the reasoning or m ethodology underlying the testim ony is scientifically valid.”16 “The aim is to exclude expert testim ony based m erely on subjective belief or unsupported speculation.”17 In Daubert, the Suprem e Court enum erated several non-exclusive factors that courts m ay consider in evaluating the reliability of expert testim ony. 18 “These factors are (1) whether the expert’s theory can or has been tested, (2) whether the theory has been subject to peer review and publication, (3) the known or potential rate of error of a technique or theory when applied, (4) the existence and m aintenance of standards and controls, and (5) the degree to which the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific com m unity.”19 The Suprem e Court cautioned that the reliability analysis m ust be flexible: the Daubert factors “m ay or m ay not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depen ding on the nature of the issue, the expert’s particular expertise, and the subject of his testim ony.”20 Thus, “not every Daubert factor will be applicable in every situation . . . and a court has discretion to consider other factors it deem s relevant.”21 In sum , the district court is offered broad latitude in m aking expert testim ony determ inations. 22 14 See Pipitone v. Biom atrix, Inc., 28 8 F.3d 239, 243– 44 (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm ., Inc., 50 9 U.S. 579, 592– 93 (1993)). 15 Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 30 2 F.3d 448, 459– 60 (5th Cir. 20 0 2). 16 Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 48 2 F.3d 347, 352 (5th Cir. 20 0 7). See also Burleson v. Texas Dep’t of Crim inal Justice, 393 F.3d 577, 584 (5th Cir. 20 0 4); Bocanegra v. Vicm ar Servs., Inc., 320 F.3d 581, 584– 85 (5th Cir. 20 0 3). 17 Burst v. Shell Oil Co., 12o F. Supp. 3d 547, 550 (E.D. La. 20 15) (internal citations om itted). 18 Daubert, 50 9 U.S. at 592– 96. 19 Bocanegra, 320 F.3d at 58 4– 85 (citin g Daubert, 50 9 U.S. at 593– 94). 20 Kum ho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carm ichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999). 21 Guy v . Crow n Equip. Corp., 394 F.3d 320 , 326 (5th Cir. 20 0 4). 22 See, e.g., Kum ho Tire, 526 U.S. at 151– 53. 3 Expert testim ony, to be adm issible under Rule 70 2, m ust also be relevant. 23 In assessing whether proposed expert testim ony is relevant to a particular case, the district court m ust, at all tim es, rem ain “cognizant of Rule 70 2’s requirem ent that expert evidence or testim ony m ust assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determ ine a fact in issue; expert testim ony that does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant.”24 The court should consider “whether the reasoning or m ethodology ‘fits’ the facts of the case and will thereby assist the trier of fact to understand the eviden ce.”25 Moreover, “[i]f an opinion is fundam entally unsupported, then it offers no expert assistance to the jury,” is not relevant to the case, and should be excluded. 26 D ISCU SSION Stephen Syson was retained as an expert witness in this case by the Plaintiff, Darrell Ladnier. According to Syson, he is an expert in the field of “autom otive design analysis engineering,” which Syson defines as the “specialty of analyzing the design and perform ance of vehicles, including restraint system s.”27 Syson prepared an expert report dated April 15, 20 15, noting that he “analyzed the perform ance of the helicopter sim ulator seatbelt buckle assem bly to determ ine if the seatbelt buckle was a producing cause of Darrell Ladnier’s shoulder injuries.”28 Syson’s expert report, however, contains very little “report.” Approxim ately 70 % of the report is dedicated to sum m arizing Syson’s experience, generally, in the field of 23 See Daubert, 50 9 U.S. at 589– 91. Hagan v. Jackson Cnty ., M iss., No. 1:13CV268-HSO-RHW, 20 16 WL 10 9110 7, at *5 (citing Daubert, 50 9 U.S. at 591). 25 N agle v. Gusm an, No. 12-1910 , 20 16 WL 560 68 8, at *5 (E.D. La. Feb. 12, 20 16) (citing Daubert, 50 9 U.S. at 591). 26 Guile v. United States, 422 F.3d 221, 227 (5th Cir. 20 0 5) (quotin g Viterbo v. Dow Chem . Co., 826 F.2d 420 , 422 (5th Cir. 1987)) (internal quotation m arks om itted). See also N agle, 20 16 WL 560 68 8, at *5. 27 R. Doc. 37-3 at 1 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). 28 R. Doc. 37-3 at 1 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). 24 4 “autom otive design analysis engin eering” and his involvem ent with other projects and studies in that field. 29 Much of the report is “filler,” including such item s as his design experience with respect to air bags and vehicle structures and how to do a “real world,” as he calls it, collision analysis. 30 Although his experience with autom otive restraint system s is adm ittedly extensive, it generally involves vehicular collisions. 31 His only reference to seatbelt buckle perform ance which m ight be relevant to the facts of this case is that he “had tests conducted of safety belt buckles to determ ine why they would fail to release after a collision, in term s of both fire and im m ersion,”32 but the Court has found no correlation between the results obtained in those tests and the facts of this case. A nearly two-page section on “General Crashworthiness” m entions that STC’s helicopter sim ulator violated the principles of crashworthiness, but the principles invoked apply to “severe crashes.”33 Such a crash did not occur in this case. It is clear to the Court that very little of Syson’s experience involves the issues confronted in this case and, perhaps as a result, very little of his report is devoted to actually applying his knowledge and experience to the facts and circum stances of this particular case. As best the Court can tell, the opinions contained in Syson’s report which are specific to the facts of this case include the following: Safety & Training Consultants failed to act with reasonable care, since Safety & Training Consultants failed to assess the consequences of the difficulties associated with unlatching a buckle while the safety belt is under load and the buckle is corroded and lacks lubrication. 29 See R. Doc. 37-3 at 1– 7 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). R. Doc. 37-3 at 3– 6 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). 31 R. Doc. 37-3 at 6– 7 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). 32 See R. Doc. 37-3 at 6 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). 33 See R. Doc. 37-3 at 6– 7 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). Moreover, it appears that the m aterials that Syson relied on with respect to seatbelt buckle perform ance during “severe crashes” are, at least in part, outdated. See R. Doc. 37-1 at 18– 19; see gen erally R. Doc. 37-5. This further underm in es the reliability of Syson’s opin ions. 30 5 Safety & Training Consultants failed to act with reasonable care since it conducted no appropriate safety system s analysis, including but not lim ited to: • Failure Mode an d Effects Analysis • Design Failure Mode Analysis • Risk Hazard and Danger Analysis • Root Cause Analysis • Identification of potential risks, hazards and dangers. The use of one or m ore of these engineering analysis functions is m andatory to determ ine if a vehicle’s safety system s will perform adequately. REC Marine failed to provide a reasonably safe workplace, since they failed to appropriately assess the risks, hazards and dangers associated with requiring that Mr. Ladnier be exposed to Safety & Training Consultants’ helicopter sim ulator. 34 Ladnier’s safety belt becam e jam m ed in the buckle during the inversion. Therefore, the safety belt failed to m eet the NHTSA, restraint system industry and m ilitary recom m endations that safety belts should be easy to unlatch after a collision. 35 The Federal Rules of Evidence require that expert testim ony be based upon sufficient facts or data to be adm issible. 36 Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires that an expert’s report include the facts or data which the expert considered in form ing his opinions. 37 Syson’s report does include general statem ents concerning his reliance on his background and training, m ostly with respect to vehicular collisions, 38 but these referen ces are n ot sufficient to satisfy Rule 26. Syson also purports to rely on the laws of physics and the principals of autom otive and m echan ical engineering, 39 but his references to these gen eral prin ciples are not sufficient to satisfy Rule 26 with respect to the bases of his opinions or his m ethodology. Only in Section VII, Event Analysis, does 34 R. Doc. 37-3 at 9 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). See R. Doc. 37-3 at 8 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). 36 F ED . R. E VID . 70 2. 37 F ED . R. CIV. P. 26. 38 See R. Doc. 37-3 at 1 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). 39 R. Doc. 37-3 at 1 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). 35 6 Syson identify the physical and testim onial evidence he exam ined, including (1) the accident report, and other reports; 40 (2) Ladnier’s deposition; (3) Photographs of the sim ulator and its occupant restraint system ; and (4) Exem plar safety belts from Safety Belts Plus and David Aircraft Products. 41 The Court m ust assum e that this is the universe of the facts and data considered by Syson in form ing his opinions. Under Daubert, the Court is required to m ake a prelim inary assessm ent of whether Syson’s expert testim ony is reliable and relevant. 42 The plaintiff has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the expert’s testim ony satisfies Daubert and is both reliable and relevant. 43 The Daubert case enum erates the non-exclusive factors courts m ay consider in evaluating the reliability of expert testim ony as (1) whether the expert’s theory can or has been tested, (2) whether the theory has been subject to peer review an d publication, (3) the known or potential rate of error of a technique or theory when applied, (4) the existence an d m aintenance of standards an d controls, and (5) the degree to which the technique or theory has been gen erally accepted in the scientific com m unity. 44 Syson’s analysis, as described by him , is that he (1) m ade a detailed study of the photographic evidence; (2) analyzed technical drawings an d patents for other levertype safety-belt buckles; (3) inspected other buckles sim ilar to and different from the subject Seat Belts Plus buckle; and (4) reviewed research m aterials regarding buckle design, in cluding paten ts, SAE papers, test reports, and defect investigations. 45 In Section III, Assignm ent, Paragraph B, Syson states that he perform ed his an alysis using m ethods 40 This vague reference to “other reports” is not considered for purposes of this order. R. Doc. 37-3 at 8 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). 42 See Daubert v. M errell Dow Pharm ., Inc., 50 9 U.S. 579, 592– 93 (1993)). 43 Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 30 2 F.3d 448, 459– 60 (5th Cir. 20 0 2). 44 See Daubert, 50 9 U.S. at 593– 94. 45 See R. Doc. 37-3 at 8 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). 41 See 7 which are used by other restraint-system engineers engaged in the profession of accident analysis. 46 No further explanation is provided. In Section IV, Test Data Analysis, Paragraph B, Syson states: “My analysis of test data was supplem ented by m athem atical m odeling of both occupant kinem atics and vehicle structural dynam ic perform an ce.”47 This appears to be a statem ent from a previous report inadvertently included in the Ladn ier report. If not inadvertently included, the Court is perplexed as it could find no other reference to any test data or m athem atical m odeling perform ed by Syson in this case. Syson has failed to adequately identify and describe the techniques or theories he applied in reaching his opinions. As a result, the Court is unable to determ ine whether the theory can or has been tested, whether it has been subject to peer review, whether it has a known or potential rate of error when applied, whether there are existing an d m aintain ed standards and controls, or whether the technique or theory has been gen erally accepted in the scientific com m unity. After applying the factors enum erated in Daubert, the Court finds that Ladnier has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Syson’s expert testim ony is reliable. Furtherm ore, with respect to Syson’s first opinion, that STC “failed to assess the consequences of the difficulties associated with unlatching a buckle while the safety belt is under load and the buckle is corroded and lacks lubrication,” it is within the province of the jury to conclude that m etal subm erged under water m ay rust and, if it does, becom e difficult to operate. Expert testim ony on this issue is not needed to aid the trier of fact. 46 47 R. Doc. 37-3 at 4 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). See R. Doc. 37-3 at 4 (Expert Report of Stephen R. Syson). 8 CON CLU SION For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORD ERED that STC’s m otion in lim ine 48 is GRAN TED , and Stephen Syson is precluded from offering his proposed expert testim on y at the trial of this m atter. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 5th d ay o f March , 2 0 16 . ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 48 R. Doc. 37. 9
]]>
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.
