Rhoads Indus. v. Shoreline Found., Inc.

Rhoads Indus. v. Shoreline Found., Inc.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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.

Contents

I. BACKGROUND

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

III. DISCUSSION

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)

1. Qualification

2. Reliability

3. Fit

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

precluded"

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.