Stratton v. Thompson/Center Arms, Inc.

608 F.Supp.3d 1079

Zane STRATTON, Plaintiff,

v.THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK

United States District Court, D. Utah.

Signed June 13, 2022

David A. Cutt, Margie G. Coles, Matthew O'Connor, Eisenberg Cutt Kendell & Olson, Salt Lake City, UT, Robert A. Thrasher, Pro Hac Vice, Timothy W. Monsees, Pro Hac Vice, Monsees & Mayer PC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.

Anthony M. Pisciotti, Pro Hac Vice, Clifford M. Laney, Danny C. Lallis, Pisciotti Malsch PC, Florham Park, NJ, Jennifer H. Mastrorocco, Goebel Anderson PC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE [145], [146], [147], [148], and [150]

David Nuffer, United States District Judge

This order deals with a series of motions regarding experts, filed by each party.

Plaintiff Zane Stratton has filed four motions to exclude expert testimony in this action. Specifically, Mr. Stratton moves to preclude testimony from:

• Dr. Sam Fadala, who is offered as an expert in use, operation, and design of muzzleloading rifles;¹

• Mr. Marlin Jiranek, who is offered as an expert in metallurgy, firearm design, and material failure analysis;² and

• Mr. Lance Martini, who is offered an expert in firearms failure and toolmark evidence.³

Mr. Stratton has also filed a motion to exclude cumulative expert testimony.⁴

Defendant Thompson has opposed the Motion to Preclude Fadala,⁵ the Motion to Limit Testimony of Jiranek,⁶ the Motion to Preclude Martini,⁷ and the Motion to Exclude Cumulative Expert Testimony.⁸ Plaintiff has filed replies in support of the Motion to Preclude Fadala,⁹ the Motion to Preclude Jiranek,¹⁰ the Motion to Preclude Martini,¹¹ and the Motion to Exclude Cumulative Expert Testimony.¹²

Thompson's Motion to Exclude Chandran : Thompson has also filed a motion to preclude testimony from Dr. Ravi Chandran, an expert for whom Mr. Stratton never provided an expert report.¹³ Mr. Stratton does not oppose the Motion to Preclude Chandran.¹⁴

For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Fadala is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiff's Motion to Limit Testimony of Jiranek is GRANTED; Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Martini is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Cumulative Expert Testimony is DENIED. Additionally, Defendant's Motion to Preclude Dr. Chandran is GRANTED.

Contents

Background...1084

Discussion...1084

Dr. Fadala may not offer causation opinions...1085

Dr. Fadala's methods are not reliable...1085

There is too large a gap between Dr. Fadala's methods and the conclusions he makes...1086

Mr. Jiranek may not provide expert testimony based on methods that Dr. Block did not use....1087

Mr. Martini may testify about the characteristics of the subject bullet, but not about the cause of the explosion...1088

Mr. Martini's Causation Opinions...1089

Mr. Martini's Subject Bullet Opinions...1090

Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Cumulative Testimony is Denied...1090

Defendant's Motion to Exclude Dr. Chandran is granted...1091

Conclusion and Order...1091

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of injuries Mr. Stratton suffered as a result of a muzzleloading rifle explosion in Cedar City, Utah. When Mr. Stratton fired the rifle (the "Subject Rifle"), it exploded, causing serious damage to his hand. Both the Subject Rifle and the bullet that was in the rifle when it was fired (the "Subject Bullet") were later recovered. Thompson has disclosed several witnesses as experts to testify on the rifle failure, including Dr. Fadala, Mr. Jiranek, and Mr. Martini. Mr. Stratton has filed motions to preclude or limit the expert testimony of a number of these witnesses.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702, which provides the standard for admission of expert testimony:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education 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.¹⁵

The proponent of the expert testimony bears the burden of establishing that the offered expert meets the standards required by Rule 702.¹⁶

Rule 702 requires an expert's opinion to not only be reliable, but also relevant.¹⁷ Reliability requires a determination that "the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid", and that the reasoning or methodology is characterized by an appropriate degree of intellectual rigor.¹⁸ Opinions which are connected to the case only by the ipse dixit of the expert do not pass muster under Rule 702.¹⁹ Furthermore, there must be a "fit" between the expert testimony and the proposed expert conclusions; even if an expert's testimony is reliable, it must be relevant and applicable to the subject matter at hand.²⁰ The Tenth Circuit has illustrated this principle by explaining "[t]estimony concerning the laws of quantum mechanics may be scientifically relevant, but may have no practical relevance to testimony concerning the function and possible failure of a water heater safety valve control."²¹

Dr. Fadala may not offer causation opinions

Dr. Fadala was offered by Thompson as an expert in muzzleloading rifle use, design, and operation.²² Parts of Dr. Fadala's proposed testimony involves opinions on the cause of the rifle explosion. Mr. Stratton objects to those opinions, arguing that Dr. Fadala is not qualified to opine on the cause of the firearm explosion; his methods are flawed; and his opinions on the subject should be excluded.²³ Because Dr. Fadala's methods regarding the rifle's explosions are neither reliable nor relevant, he will be precluded from testimony on the subject.

Dr. Fadala opines that the Subject Rifle failed due to a "short start", which occurs when empty space is left between powder and projectile in a muzzleloading rifle, causing the entirety of the powder to ignite at once.²⁴ Dr. Fadala bases his conclusion on the presence of a visual signature in the remains of the Subject Rifle: a combination of the forepart of the barrel remaining intact,²⁵ a large debris field,²⁶ and some type of bulge deformity being present in the rifle barrel.²⁷ No further specific information about this visual signature is given; rather, Dr. Fadala states that he "know[s] what a short start looks like."²⁸

Dr. Fadala's methods are not reliable

While Dr. Fadala has tremendous experience with muzzleloading rifles, he has not established that the "visual signature" is a reliable way of determining the cause of a rifle explosion. Dr. Fadala points to no peer reviewed studies or other forms of objective validation to demonstrate that this signature is a reliable way of identifying the cause of a gun explosion. ²⁹

It is unclear if this signature can appear in the absence of a short start, if the presence of this signature always indicates a short start, or if a short start can occur without leaving this signature—in other words, the error rate is completely unknown. Indeed, Dr. Fadala states in a handbook he published that he has "seen barrels withstand several short started loads," but also has seen "barrels exploding into fragments with short started loads."³⁰ And the signature itself is not described in sufficient detail for its presence or absence to be reasonably challenged by Mr. Stratton. Dr. Fadala appears to primarily base his conclusion on "know[ing] what a short start looks like."³¹ Dr. Fadala's analysis is thus "a subjective, conclusory approach that cannot reasonably be assessed for reliability," and accordingly does not meet the standards of Rule 702.³²

Dr. Fadala claims support for his conclusions from tests he conducted where he blew up "hundreds of muzzleload[ing rifles]" and observed the results.³³ These tests are opaque to say the least. Dr. Fadala has not detailed the amount or type of gunpowder used in each test, the type of metal of the rifles, how specifically he created the short start, whether he used any type of controls, or indeed most of the factors a different expert would need to reconstruct or evaluate the tests. Dr. Fadala has also not disclosed any data from the tests, photographs or measurements of the tests, or the individual results of the tests. In these circumstances, Dr. Fadala's conclusions are nothing more than ipse dixit.³⁴ Therefore, Dr. Fadala has not met his burden of demonstrating that his methods are reliable.

There is too large a gap between Dr. Fadala's methods and the conclusions he makes

Even if Dr. Fadala's testing methods had been reliable, there is not a "fit" between the methods he used and the conclusion he draws in this case.³⁵ The tests that Dr. Fadala conducted involved different guns and different circumstances than the gun and circumstances at issue here.³⁶ Not only did Dr. Fadala never conduct tests on an exemplar rifle, he has never tested any rifle manufactured by Thompson.³⁷ Dr. Fadala has also never conducted tests using the same type of powder that Mr. Stratton used or the same type of bullet as the Subject Bullet.³⁸ Nor is it clear if he has ever tested a rifle made with the same type or thickness of steel as the one at question here. In fact, Dr. Fadala has disclosed little information about the tests he conducted besides the rather cursory description that he has "personally tested hundreds of muzzleloaders to destruction, including using double projectiles, double loads, triple loads, quadruple loads, duplex loads, smokeless powder loads in black powder only firearms, pistol powder, short starts, and many combinations of this list."³⁹ In light of this lack of information, it is difficult to evaluate the extent to which the conclusions he draws from those tests are relevant here.

...