Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02742/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02742-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIELLE SMITH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PEPSI AMERICAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-02742-SI 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT 

TESTIMONY AND FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 280

Defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment is scheduled 

for a hearing on February 26, 2016. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that 

this motion is suitable for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. 

Defendants move to exclude in part the expert testimony of Dr. Vera Byers, Dr. Rod 

O'Connor, and Dr. Linda Remy. Defendants contend that these experts' testimony is unreliable 

and does not provide evidence in support of plaintiff Smith's claims of reproductive injuries and

for medical monitoring. Based upon the record before the Court, as well as the procedural history 

of this case,1the Court concludes that defendants' arguments go to the weight and not the 

admissibility of the expert testimony, that they are the proper subjects for cross-examination, and 

 

1

 On April 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to exclude in part the expert testimony of 

Dr. Vera Byers, Dr. Rod O'Connor, and Dr. William Sawyer, as well as a motion for summary 

judgment on plaintiff’s claims. The Court granted the motion and entered summary judgment in 

favor of defendants. Plaintiff appealed, and on May 16, 2013, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part 

and reversed in part, and reinstated plaintiff’s claims based on exposure to hexavalent chromium. 

Dkt. No. 239. The Ninth Circuit held, inter alia, that the Court had improperly excluded certain of 

plaintiff’s experts’ opinions. 

Case 3:08-cv-02742-SI Document 308 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

that there are triable issues of fact regarding plaintiff's claims. The Court also finds that plaintiff 

may rely on Dr. O'Connor's report that he prepared in the related Avila case. Accordingly, the 

Court DENIES defendants' motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02742-SI Document 308 Filed 02/19/16 Page 2 of 2