![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
July 2, 2021, Decided; July 2, 2021, Filed
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-921; CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-266
DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Presently before the Court are the motions to preclude or limit expert testimony of Plaintiffs Rhoads Industries, Inc. and Rhoads Marine Industries, Inc. (collectively "Rhoads") and Defendants (collectively "Defendants") Triton Marine Construction Corporation ("Triton"), TranSytems Corporation ("TranSystems"), and Shoreline Foundation, Inc. ("Shoreline"). Rhoads filed motions to preclude seven of Defendants' experts, and Defendants', jointly or individually, filed four motions to preclude Rhoads' experts. In this omnibus opinion, we address separately each of these eleven motions. First, we provide the [*2] relevant background information. Next, we set out the legal standards governing motions to preclude expert testimony. Finally, we discuss and reach a determination on each individual motion.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Rhoads' motion to preclude Mark Kilgore
(Civ. No. 17-266, Doc. 145)
B. Defendants' motion to preclude Edward
Garbin (Civ. No. 15-921, Doc. 139)
C. Defendants' motion to preclude David Wilshaw
(Civ. No. 15-921, Doc. 141)
1. Whether "Wilshaw's opinion that vibration
from pile driving was the/a cause of the
subsidence . . . must be precluded"
2. Whether "Wilshaw's opinion that the pile
driving caused or exacerbated soil piping
into the dry dock or caused damage to the dry
dock or Building 669 must be precluded"
3. Whether "Wilshaw's opinion that the
Defendants should have recommended
vibration monitoring or more expansive
vibration monitoring to the Navy should be
4. Whether "Wilshaw's opinions regarding the
impact of [other phenomena] as potential
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124066 *; 2021 WL 2778562
RHOADS INDUSTRIES, INC., et al v. SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC., et al;RHOADS INDUSTRIES, INC., et al v. TRITON MARINE CONTRUCTION CORP.
Subsequent History: Reconsideration denied by Rhoads Indus. v. Shoreline Found., Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157571 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 19, 2021)
Prior History: Rhoads Indus. v. Shoreline Found., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174050, 2019 WL 4962542 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 7, 2019)
drydock, pile drive, vibration, reliable, damages, soil, disclosure, expert testimony, subsidence, qualifications, monitoring, argues, projections, repair, bid, rainfall, causation, observe, calculations, methodology, opines, good ground, cross-examination, unreliable, deposition, proffered, contends, training, pile, challenges