Bledsoe et al v. FCA US LLC et al, No. 4:2016cv14024 - Document 262 (E.D. Mich. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER DENYING 203 Motion to Strike Declaration of Plaintiffs' Expert Smithers, DENYING 192 Motion to Strike Smithers' August 16. 2021 Report, and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 194 , 199 , and 219 Defendants' Three Other Daubert-Related Motions Regarding Plaintiffs' Experts Smithers and Stockton. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dockets.Justia.com JAMES BLEDSOE FCA US LLC, CUMMINS INC., Bledsoe et al v. FCA US LLC et al 4:16-CV-14024-TGB-RSW ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SMITHERS (ECF NO. 203), DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE SMITHERS’ AUGUST 16, 2021 REPORT (ECF NO. 192), AND DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ THREE OTHER DAUBERT-RELATED MOTIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS SMITHERS AND STOCKTON (ECF NOS. 194, 199, 219) Doc. 262 DENIES DENIES DENIES in part GRANTS in part I. BACKGROUND See U.S. Government Publishing Office Style Manual Id See DENIES DENIES DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART Daubert II. LEGAL STANDARD Zuzula v. ABB Power T & D Co. Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. v. Raymond Corp Jahn v. Equine Servs., PSC Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael Daubert Daubert Id. Daubert not Kumho Tire Daubert Id how Id. see also Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. Thomas v. Novartis Pharms. Corp Kumho Tire In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig. Daubert Cason-Merenda v. Detroit Med. Ctr. In re Nw. Airlines Corp. Antitrust Litig. McLean v. 988011 Ontario, Ltd. United States v. L.E. Cooke Co. United States v. Scott See United States v. Ramer Id In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig III. DISCUSSION A. PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT JUSTON SMITHERS i. Smithers’ qualifications Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Journal of the American Chemical Society Journal of Organic Chemistry Id. Id. Id. See Counts v. Gen. Motors LLC ii. Smithers’ August 16, 2021 Class Certification Report Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. 1. Excessive Active Regeneration as an EED Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. 2. Ambient Temperature, Higher Power/Load Conditions, and Start Temperature as Other EEDs Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. 3. Diesel Aftertreatment Configurations Id. 1. Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 2. Diesel Particulate Filter (“DPF”) 3. NOx Reduction Catalyst (through either Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”) or a NOx Adsorber) Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. 1. Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 2. NOx Reduction Catalyst (NOx Adsorber) 3. Diesel Particulate Filter (“DPF”) Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. 4. Smithers’ testing processes and findings Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. iii. Smithers’ November 12, 2021 Declaration Id. Id. Id. Id. Estes v. King’s Daughters Med. Ctr. See See In re Iron Workers Local 25 Pension Fund see also Aerel, S.R.L. v. PCC Airfoils, L.L.C. See Moore, Owen, Thomas & Co. v. Coffey cf. Estes Counts v. Gen. Motors LLC Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Stutte DENIED. iv. Smithers’ December 16, 2021 Merits Report Id. see also Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. B. DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT RYAN HARRINGTON Id. Id. Id. See also Counts v. Gen. Motors, LLC C. DEFENDANTS’ CHALLENGES TO SMITHERS’ REPORT, DECLARATION, AND MERITS REPORT FIRST i. Challenges to Smithers’ EED opinions Id. Id. Id. Id. See Jahn v. Equine Servs. PSC ii. Challenges to Smithers’ opinions on Model 3500 testing See, e.g. See id. see also See Bledsoe v. FCA US LLC (Bledsoe II) Bledsoe I Bledsoe II Bledsoe II See Heller v. Shaw Indus., Inc. McLean iii. Challenges to Smithers’ model years analysis Id. See Conwood Co. v. U.S. Tobacco Co In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig. Whirlpool Props., Inc. v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc. iv. Challenges to Smithers’ AECD opinions See See Chavez v. Carranza McReynolds v. Sodexho Marriott Servs., Inc. Dura Auto. Sys. of Ind., Inc. v. CTS Corp see also Gutierez v. State Farm Lloyds v. Challenges to Smithers’ opinions on Truck software Id. see also vi. Challenges to Smithers’ dynamometer opinions Id. See Id. vii. Challenges to Smithers’ opinions on linearity id. viii. Conclusion D. RELEVANCE AND FIT OF SMITHERS’ RELATING TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT OPINIONS See Greenwell v. Boatwright Daubert E. SMITHERS’ OPINIONS ON CUMMINS’ ACTIVE REGENERATION FUNCTION i. Smithers’ opinions on federal regulation of defeat devices and UAF calculations Id. Id. See id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id See id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. ii. Smithers’ opinions on Cummins’ alleged fraud of the regulators See See Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. See Id Id. iii. The bases for Smithers’ opinions that Cummins committed fraud in its regulatory certification application are unreliable Id. Id. Id Id. Id See See Id. See Smesler v. Norfolk So. R.R. Co. Meemic Ins. Co. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. GRANTS in part F. PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT EDWARD STOCKTON i. Stockton’s qualifications Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prod. Liab. Litig. In re Volkswagen Id. See see also In re Volkswagen See also Counts Daubert ii. Stockton’s August 16, 2021 declaration Id. Id. 1. Stockton’s proposed Overpayment model Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. 2. Stockton’s model proposed Excess Fuel Consumption Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. 3. Stockton’s damages proposal for calculating class-wide Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. iii. Stockton’s December 16, 2021 Merits Report Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. 1. The effect of excluding Smithers’ defeat device opinions on Stockton’s opinions Id. Id. Id. 2. Stockton’s execution of the Overpayment and Excess Fuel Consumption models Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. G. DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT LORIN HITT Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. See Counts Daubert H. DEFENDANTS’ CRITIQUES OF STOCKTON’S DECLARATION AND REPORT i. Challenges to Stockton’s lack of supply and demand analysis Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id Id. Id. Id. Id. See In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig. see also Cason-Merenda v. Detroit Med. Ctr. See Daubert ii. Challenges to Stockton’s lack of analysis of customers’ willingness to pay in a but-for world Id. Id Id. Id. Id. Id. Id see also iii. Challenges to Stockton’s lack of consideration for putative class customer preferences and Truck features Id. Id. iv. Challenges to Stockton’s use of the $995 figure on the Monroney labels and failure to disaggregate the NOx reduction feature Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id Id. Id. Id. see also See McLean v. Challenges to Stockton’s “discounting” of the $995 figure and variance in transaction prices Id. Id. vi. Challenges to Stockton’s methods on allocating damages across multiple owners of the same vehicle Id. Id. see also vii. Challenges to Stockton’s Excess Fuel Consumption model 1. Stockton’s lack of consideration expectations on fuel consumption for consumer Id. Id. see also 2. Stockton’s Excess Fuel purported analytical flaws Consumption model’s EEDs viii. Challenges to Stockton’s provision of windfall damages Id. Id. Id. Id. See Counts I. RELEVANCE AND FIT OF STOCKTON’S OPINIONS Id. Id. See, e.g. IV. CONCLUSION DENIES in its entirety Juston Smithers’ DENIES in its entirety Juston Smithers’ DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Juston Smithers’ DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Edward Stockton DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Edward Stockton IT IS SO ORDERED. Certificate of Service
]]>
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.
