Specter v. Tex. Turbine Conversions, Inc.

JOLYN L. SPECTER, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF JAMES E. SPECTER, M.D.,and on behalf of herself, and the Surviving Family Members including KEVIN SPECTER,and DAVID W. WOOD, JR. and MARIANNE WOOD,Individually an on behalf of the marital community, Plaintiffs, v. TEXAS TURBINE CONVERSIONS, INC., a Texas Corporation,RECON AIR CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00194-TMB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

December 8, 2020

ORDER ON PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING SPATIAL DISORIENTATION

(DKTS. 165, 185)

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter comes before the Court on two motions in limine from the parties to exclude expert testimony regarding spatial disorientation. First, Plaintiffs move to preclude defense experts Robert Carducci, Mark Madden, and Lawrence Timmons from testifying about spatial disorientation and the role it may have played in the plane crash.¹ Second, Recon Air Corporation ("RAC") moves to exclude Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert, Ronald Smith, from testifying.² The Motionshave been fully briefed and are ready for decision.³ The Parties did not request oral argument, and the Court finds it is not necessary. Based on the following reasons, the Motions are DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

The background facts of this case are set out in detail in this Court's order at Docket 313. The facts are incorporated by reference and will not be repeated here.⁴

Plaintiffs move to exclude defense experts Carducci, Madden, and Timmons from testifying regarding Pilot Furnia's spatial disorientation and what role it may have played in the crash.⁵ Plaintiffs argue that Carducci, Madden, and Timmons lack the requisite expertise or foundational reliability to offer an opinion that Pilot Furnia suffered from spatial disorientation and crashed the plane.⁶ TTC and RAC filed oppositions arguing that the three experts are qualified to give expert testimony on spatial disorientation and their opinions are relevant and helpful because Pilot Furnia testified that his disorientation caused the accident.⁷

Ronald Smith, an aviation physiologist, provided a Rebuttal Expert Report on behalf of Plaintiffs to rebut defense experts Carducci, Madden, and Timmons' testimony that Furnia suffered from spatial disorientation during the flight.⁸ RAC moves to exclude Smith's testimony as improper rebuttal testimony that fails to actually contradict defense experts' testimony and thatshould have been anticipated and disclosed during initial expert disclosures.⁹ Plaintiffs oppose this Motion and argue Smith's testimony is a proper rebuttal to defense experts.¹⁰

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion in Limine and Relevancy

"'A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence in a particular area'"¹¹ and is "a well-recognized judicial practice authorized under case law."¹² A court's power to rule on motions in limine stems from "the court's inherent power to manage the course of trials."¹³

Federal Rule of Evidence ("FRE") 401 "defines relevant evidence as 'evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.'"¹⁴ "If evidence is relevant, it is generally admissible under [FRE] 402."¹⁵ "However, relevant evidence must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury."¹⁶

B. FRE 702 and Daubert

FRE 702 controls the admissibility of an expert's opinion. FRE 702, as modified in light of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., provides that:

A witness who is qualified as an expert . . . may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(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.¹⁷

The principles of Daubert apply to both scientific¹⁸ and "technical" or "other specialized" knowledge.¹⁹ When determining the admissibility of such evidence in advance of trial, the court undertakes a "gatekeeping" function to ensure that the jury's consideration of evidence is not contaminated by irrelevant or scientifically unsupported testimony.²⁰

The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether expert testimony is admissible: (1) "the trial court must make a 'preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue,'" i.e., whether the profferedtestimony is reliable; and (2) the trial court "must ensure that the proposed expert testimony is relevant and will serve to aid the trier of fact."²¹

The reliability inquiry is "a flexible one."²² Several factors that can be used to determine the reliability of expert testimony are: (1) "whether a theory or technique can be tested"; (2) "whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication"; (3) "the known or potential error rate of the theory or technique"; and (4) "whether the theory or technique enjoys general acceptance within the relevant scientific community."²³

The relevancy inquiry, requires the court to ensure that the proposed expert testimony is "relevant to the task at hand," i.e., that it "logically advances a material aspect of the proposing party's case."²⁴ Once an expert "meets the threshold established by [FRE] 702 as explained in Daubert, the expert may testify and the jury decides how much weight to give that testimony."²⁵

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Defense Expert Testimony on Spatial Disorientation

For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to exclude defense expert testimony regarding spatial disorientation is DENIED. Courts have frequently allowed expert testimony to explain to a fact finder the mechanics and effects of spatial disorientation in the context of plane crashes.²⁶

Here, defense expert Carducci is an aeronautical engineer who opines on a number of topics, including that Pilot Furnia suffered from spatial disorientation early in the flight that resulted in his loss of control and caused the aircraft to crash.²⁷ Carducci has extensive experience with modification of aircraft and associated equipment, development of aircraft safety procedures and instructions, investigations into aircraft losses and crashes, and has had a privates pilot's license for decades.²⁸

Defense expert Timmons, an aeronautical engineer with over fifty years of engineering experience, product development, and flight test experience as well a personal pilot's license,opines that Pilot Furnia was unaware of his spatial orientation or maneuvers, leading to disorientation and the crash.²⁹ Defense expert Madden, a professor of aviation technology who has taught human factors courses and who is a licensed pilot with personal experience with spatial disorientation, also opines that Pilot Furnia lost control and crashed as a result of spatial disorientation.³⁰

Plaintiffs argue that defense experts Carducci, Madden, and Timmons lack the requisite expertise or foundational reliability to offer an opinion that Pilot Furnia suffered from spatial disorientation and what impact this spatial disorientation may have had in causing the plane crash.³¹ Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that Carducci lacks "any expertise in human factors, human perception, aviation medicine, or any of the other categories of expertise necessary to opine about spatial disorientation" instead explaining his expertise is that "spatial disorientation is 'common knowledge in the aviation industry'" and referencing military tests involving perception challenges arising from inner ear issues.³² Plaintiffs argue that Timmons similarly fails to meet the Daubert standard for reliable expert testimony, with no scientific basis for his claim, training in "human factors or the considerations of spatial disorientation" and a misplaced reliance on Pilot Furnia's testimony.³³ Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Madden's testimony fails to meet the Daubert requirements because although Madden taught a human factors course, he has no formal educationor training in that topic and lacks medical or human physiology training.³⁴ Further, Plaintiffs point to Madden's rejection of situational awareness as a possible cause for the crash and Madden's amateur application of FAA definitions as further evidence Madden is unqualified to opine on Pilot Furnia's supposed spatial disorientation.³⁵ Smith, an aviation physiologist, provided a Rebuttal Expert Report on behalf of Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs reference Smith's Report and his methodology as evidence of defense experts' shortcomings.³⁶

Defendants argue that Pilot Furnia testified that his disorientation caused the plane crash.³⁷ They also defend their three experts' credentials, experience, and foundation—and thereby qualifications—to provide expert testimony on spatial disorientation, and Defendants contend that it is not necessary for a proffered spatial disorientation expert witness to be a medical doctor or a human factors expert.³⁸

The Court agrees. Under the FRE 702 and Daubert standards, defense experts Carducci, Madden, and Timmons are sufficiently qualified to opine on Pilot Furnia's alleged spatial disorientation. All have extensive backgrounds and familiarity with not only the mechanics of planes and flight simulations, but, as pilots, all have personal experience with the effects of spatial disorientation and should be permitted to testify and should be permitted to offer opinions basedon reasoning, experience and examination of data from the...