Bettencourt v. SharkNinja Operating LLC

1

JESICA ANN BETTENCOURT, Plaintiff, v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC., Defendant.

No. 22-cv-09091-CRB

United States District Court, N.D. California

June 25, 2024

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS OF DEREK KING

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Jessica Ann Bettencourt suffered hand lacerations when the blade assembly fell out of a blender manufactured by Defendant SharkNinja Operating, LLC (“SharkNinja”). Plaintiff sued SharkNinja alleging strict and negligent products liability due to SharkNinja's failure to provide a locking mechanism for the blade assembly. Am. Compl. (dkt. 12). SharkNinja moves to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's expert. Mot. (dkt 44). As explained below, the Court DENIES the motion with respect to Opinion Nos. 1 and 2 and GRANTS the motion with respect to Opinion Nos. 3, 4, and 5.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

SharkNinja designs and manufactures Ninja BL610 blenders (“Blender”). Am. Compl. ¶ 8. The Blender consists of three components: (1) a motor base; (2) a pitcher; and (3) a stacked blade assembly. Id. ¶ 17. The blade assembly, which runs the length of the pitcher, does not lock into place and is not otherwise secured when the lid is off or unlocked. Id. ¶¶ 17-19. It looks like this:

(Image Omitted)

Mot. at 6, 10.^[1] SharkNinja provides warnings about the loose, sharp blades in the product packaging, Owner's Guide, and “Inspiration Guide,” and on the lid of the Blender. Kaiser Decl. Exs. C (packaging) (dkt. 44-4), D (“Owner's Guide”) (dkt. 44-5), E (“Inspiration Guide”) (dkt. 44-6), F (warning) (dkt. 44-7).

The blender can only be operated when the lid is locked onto the pitcher. Kaiser Decl. Ex. B (“Rimkus Report”) (dkt. 44-3) at 8; Owner's Guide at 10. There are two ways by which users can pour blended contents out of the blender. The first is by pouring the contents out through the lid's “pour spout.” Owner's Guide at 11. It looks like this:

(Image Omitted)

Rimkus Report at 20. The second is by removing the lid, removing the stacked blade, and then pouring the contents out of the open pitcher, as illustrated here:

(Image Omitted)

Id. The owner's manual explains that to remove the lid, users should “Press the release button on the lid, pull the handle up to a 90 degree angle, then lift [the] lid off the pitcher.” Owner's Guide at 11.

Plaintiff used the Blender to make a smoothie. Kaiser Decl. Ex. H (“Pl.'s Dep. Vol. II”) (dkt. 44-9) at 24:18-19. After blending the ingredients, Plaintiff tilted the pitcher to pour the smoothie into a cup. Id. at 28:10-12. Plaintiff does not remember whether the lid was locked, but remembers that she did not remove the lid. Id. at 28:13-15, 32:22-2533:1. According to SharkNinja's expert, the lid cannot fall off of the pitcher if it is properly locked. Rimkus Report at 16. The lid fell off, the blade fell out of the pitcher, and Plaintiff's hand was cut. Pl.'s Dep. Vol. II at 29:2-9.

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed suit, claiming strict and negligent products liability. See generally Compl. (dkt. 1). Plaintiff amended her complaint, still claiming strict and negligent products liability. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 32-42. Plaintiff also submitted an expert report from Derek King in support of her defective design claim. See Kaiser Decl. Ex. K (“King Report”) (dkt. 44-12). SharkNinja filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to exclude Mr. King's testimony. MSJ (dkt. 45)^[2]; Mot. In its motion for summary judgment, SharkNinja contends, among other things, that Plaintiff's claims fail because she can neither satisfy the prima facie requirements for defective design nor present evidence of causation without admissible expert testimony. MSJ at 7-8.^[3]

C. Derek King's Testimony

Plaintiff's expert, Derek King, holds an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Ohio University and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from University of California, Berkeley. King Report at 3. He has worked as an engineer for Berkeley Engineering and Research (“BEAR”) since 2009 in the areas of failure analysis, design, and risk assessment of consumer and industrial equipment, including consumer blenders. Id.

Currently, the Blender's blade assembly is only secured to the pitcher when the lid is locked. See Id. at 5. As an alternative design, Mr. King proposes a “simple snap or locking mechanism” to hold the blade assembly in place when the lid is off or unlocked, to prevent lacerations from falling blades. Id. at 6. He provides the KitchenAid 3.5 Cup Food Chopper (“KitchenAid Chopper”) as an example. Id. at 8. Both products are used to pulverize food and have a detaching blade assembly that slides over a fixture in the pitcher. Id. They look like this:

(Image Omitted)

(Image Omitted)

Rimkus Report at 30 (SharkNinja product on the left, KitchenAid product on the right).

At the end of his report, Mr. King provides five opinions, all of which SharkNinja seeks to exclude in the present motion:

(1) the design of the Blender is defective because the blade assembly can “unintentionally separate” from the pitcher and there are safer alternative designs available;

(2) the warnings in connection with this product and the prior recalls of the BL660-a different SharkNinja product with a similarly unsecured blade assembly- show that SharkNinja was aware of the hazard from loose blades; (3) SharkNinja's Design Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (“DFMEA”)^[4] of the Blender did not address the hazard from loose blades falling out of the pitcher;

(4) if SharkNinja's DFMEA had addressed the hazard from loose blades falling out of the pitcher, then SharkNinja would have implemented a locking mechanism; and

(5) Plaintiff's injury was likely caused by “the pitcher being tipped over without the lid,” and a locking mechanism would have likely prevented the injury.

King Report at 15.

Mr. King's expert report appears to be based largely on a prior one submitted by his colleagues at BEAR in the Welch v. SharkNinja Operating LLC case. See No. 21CV00123, 2021 WL 6332889 (S.D. Tex. May 24, 2021) (alleging that the loose blade assembly of a different SharkNinja product caused severe hand lacerations when the user accidentally knocked the product off the counter while packing); Kaiser Decl. Ex. I (“Welch Report”) (dkt. 44-10). In some parts of his report in this case, Mr. King accurately recites the facts of this case. See King Report at 3 (“[Plaintiff] suffered a severe hand laceration as a result of the stacked blade assembly separating from the blender cup when she was pouring the smoothie out into a separate cup to drink from”). Mr. King also provides photos of the correct SharkNinja product that injured Plaintiff, not the product at issue in the Welch Report. See id. at 5-8; Welch Report at 5. However, in other parts of his report in this case, Mr. King provides inconsistent facts that appear to be copied from the Welch Report:

King Report in this case

Welch Report

“Ms. Bettencourt was using the subject

“Mr. Welch […] accidentally tipped over

Ninja BL610 Professional Blender that

the subject Ninja BL6850 Kitchen System

was on her kitchen counter and the stacked blade dislodged when she reached for it.” King Report at 4.

that was on his kitchen counter and the stacked blade dislodged when he reached for [. . .] it.” Welch Report at 5.

“When the pitcher was knocked over, the blade assembly slid off the spline shaft and out of the pitcher, and Ms. Bettencourt was lacerated attempting to catch the pitcher.” King Report at 5.

“When the product was knocked over, the blade assembly slid off the spline shaft, out of the bowl and Mr. Welsh was lacerated attempting to catch the bowl.” Welch Report at 6.

“The risk of accidental tip-overs is similar[.]” King Report at 10.

“The risk of accidental tip-overs is similar[.]” Welch Report at 8.

SharkNinja now moves to exclude Mr. King's testimony as irrelevant and unreliable, in part because of the inconsistencies in the King Report that appear to be copied from the Welch Report. See Mot.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” may testify in the form of an opinion if it is more likely than not that:

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Expert testimony is admissible if it is (1) relevant; and (2) reliable. Daubert v. Merril Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). Trial courts are to act as gatekeepers, ensuring that an expert “employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.” Kumho Tire., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999). The admissibility of an expert opinion is a flexible inquiry: “whether Daubert's specific factors are, or are not, reasonable measures of reliability in a particular case is a matter that the law grants the trial judge broad latitude to determine.” Id. at 153. The general rule is that “[s]haky but admissible evidence is to be attacked by cross-examination, contrary evidence, and attention to the burden of proof, not exclusion.” Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 564 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596).

Experts whose methodology is otherwise reliable should not be excluded because the facts they rely upon are in dispute unless those factual assumptions are “indisputably wrong.” In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig. 291 F.Supp.3d 936, 967 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting ...