Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01228/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01228-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, 

et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BMW of North America LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01228-PHX-JZB

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are the following Motions in Limine: (1) Defendant’s 

Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony re Alleged Other Incidents (Doc. 112); (2) 

Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Opinions of Non-Testifying 

Experts (Doc. 113); (3) Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinions Contained in 

George Hogge’s and Willie Nelsons’ Rebuttal Reports (Doc. 114); (4) Defendant’s 

Motion in Limine to Preclude Admission of and All References to Technical Service 

Bulletin S.I. M12 07 05 (Doc. 115); (5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of 

Defendant’s Experts Regarding the Ryobi Drill Charger as a Competent Ignition Source 

(Doc. 118); and (6) Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Argument that Plaintiff and/or its 

Experts Improperly Spoiled Evidence at the Fire Scene (Doc. 119). On January 25, 2016, 

the Court heard argument on the parties’ Motions in Limine during the Final Pretrial 

Conference. (Doc. 130.) Below, the Court addresses each Motion. 

I. Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Testimony re Alleged Other Incidents 

 Defendant seeks to exclude testimony by Plaintiff’s expert George Hogge 

Case 2:13-cv-01228-JZB Document 133 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 8
- 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 

regarding other alleged incidents of battery-cable-caused fires involving vehicles other 

than Mini Coopers, pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Doc. 112.) 

Specifically, in his Report, Mr. Hogge states that “lack of secure mounting would make 

[the] battery cable [in the Mini Cooper] susceptible to chafing against the metal 

underbody which has been the cause of a multitude of fires in motorized equipment and 

vehicles examined by this Engineer and documented by many others.” (Doc. 112, Ex. 

A.) In his deposition testimony, Mr. Hogge clarified he is aware of approximately ten 

such incidents, none of those instances involved Mini Coopers, and he cannot recall the 

specifics of those instances. (Doc. 112, Ex. B.) Plaintiff opposes the Motion and argues 

that Mr. Hogge’s testimony regarding other battery-cable-caused fires in vehicles is 

relevant and Defendant can limit any prejudice on cross-examination. (Doc. 123.) 

 The parties agree that evidence of the specifics of other incidents is admissible 

only to the extent those incidents occurred under substantially similar circumstances. See 

Pau v. Yosemeite Park and Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 889 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff 

admittedly has not provided any details regarding the vehicles or conditions involved in 

the other fires to which Mr. Hogge refers in his Report. Accordingly, the Court will grant 

in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion. Mr. Hogge may testify generally that an 

unprotected battery cable is a competent ignition source in a vehicle (an uncontested 

proposition), and that he has observed other instances where an unprotected battery cable 

caused a fire in a vehicle. Mr. Hogge may not testify regarding the specifics of those 

other instances, any defects that may or may not have been present in those vehicles, or 

that any such defects allowed for chafing of the battery cable and caused a fire. 

II. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Opinions of Non- Testifying Experts 

 Defendant also seeks to exclude references by Plaintiffs’ testifying experts to 

reports and opinions of non-testifying experts. (Doc. 113.) Defendant clarified at the 

Pretrial Conference that it seeks to exclude any testimony that Plaintiffs’ experts’ 

opinions are consistent with and bolstered by the opinions of other non-testifying experts. 

Plaintiffs asserted at the Conference that they intend to reference previous opinions of 

Case 2:13-cv-01228-JZB Document 133 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 8
- 3 - 

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 

non-testifying experts as consistent with the opinions of Plaintiffs’ testifying experts only 

to the extent it is needed for rehabilitation after cross-examination—i.e., to respond to 

any questions by Defendant regarding a theory that Plaintiff hired their testifying experts 

because the opinions of the non-testifying experts were not consistent with Plaintiffs’ 

theory of the case. Defendant stated that it does not intend to cross-examine Plaintiff’s 

experts regarding such issues. 

 Experts may testify to their own opinions formed based on inadmissible materials, 

but they may not recite the opinions of non-expert witnesses. See United States v. Mejia, 

545 F.3d 179, 197 (2d Cir. 2008); Mike’s Train House, Inc. v. Lionel, LLC, 472 F.3d 398, 

409 (6th Cir. 2006) (concluding that an expert’s testimony about the conclusions of 

another non-expert is inadmissible hearsay). Here, as stated above, there appears to be no 

dispute that Plaintiffs’ experts may testify regarding the data or evidence collected by 

other non-testifying experts, but that Plaintiffs’ experts may not testify to the conclusions 

or opinions of non-testifying experts to bolster their own testimony. Accordingly, the 

Court will grant Defendant’s Motion in Limine at Doc. 113. If, during trial, Defendant 

opens the door to questions regarding the opinions of non-testifying experts by its crossexamination, and Plaintiffs believe they need to rehabilitate their witness with regard to 

consistency with the reports of non-testifying experts, counsel may approach the Court 

and ask for permission to question the witness about those issues. 

III. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinions Contained in George Hogge’s and Willie Nelsons’ Rebuttal Reports 

 Defendant also seeks to exclude (1) opinions by Mr. Hogge included in his 

Rebuttal Report regarding a defect in the battery cable of Ms. Brown’s Mini Cooper; (2) 

Mr. Hogge’s opinions regarding the design of the Ryobi cordless drill and recall 

associated with it; and (3) Mr. Nelson’s opinions that the Mini Cooper engine 

compartment would burn differently from “a typical vehicle.” (Doc. 114.) As an initial 

matter, the Court has already ruled that Mr. Hogge cannot testify that a defect in the 

battery cable of the Mini Cooper led to chafing and caused the fire. (See Doc. 103 at 23-

24.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Court’s previous Order at Doc. 103, the 

Case 2:13-cv-01228-JZB Document 133 Filed 01/29/16 Page 3 of 8
- 4 - 

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 

Court will grant Defendant’s Motion in Limine and exclude the opinions in Mr. Hogge’s 

Rebuttal Report cited by Defendant: (1) on page 6 (reference to examination of the 

exemplar vehicle on which Mr. Hogge claims the insulation and the supports for the 

battery cable failed), (2) on page 7 (reference to photographs of an exemplar Mini Cooper 

with allegedly failed insulation and supports); and (3) on page 9 (reference to the 

exemplar study). 

 Likewise, the Court has already ruled that Mr. Nelson may testify regarding burn 

patterns on the Mini Cooper. (Doc. 103 at 18-19.) Defendant does not provide any new 

basis to exclude Mr. Nelson’s testimony. Therefore, the Court will deny Defendant’s 

Motion with regard to Mr. Nelson’s opinions. 

 Finally, Defendant moves to exclude Mr. Hogge’s testimony regarding the 

cordless drill and the recall associated with it. Defendant contends that Mr. Hogge is not 

qualified to testify regarding the drill or his analysis of the recall notice. Defendant 

further contends that Mr. Hogge’s opinions about the functioning of the drill are not the 

result of a reliable methodology because he has not tested his hypothesis regarding the 

circumstances under which the drill might malfunction. (Doc. 114 at 3-4.) The Court 

disagrees. Mr. Hogge testified that he has experience with drills and the conditions 

under which they may overheat. Additionally, Mr. Hogge has sufficient experience as an 

electrical engineer to understand whether, and under what conditions, a drill can be a 

competent ignition source. Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 

998, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2004) (only a “minimal foundation of knowledge, skill, and 

experience” is required for the admissibility of expert testimony); United States v. 

Garcia, 7 F.3d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 1993) (any lack of particularized experience or 

knowledge goes to the weight of the testimony rather than to its admissibility). With 

regard to methodology, Mr. Hogge appears to have analyzed the recall of the specific 

Ryobi drill model Defendant’s expert identifies, in conjunction with Mr. Hogge’s own 

review of the scene, in forming his rebuttal opinions as to whether the drill is a competent 

ignition source. The Court finds his methodology sufficiently reliable. 

Case 2:13-cv-01228-JZB Document 133 Filed 01/29/16 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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 

IV. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Admission of and All References 

to Technical Service Bulletin S.I. M12 07 05 

 Defendant seeks to preclude reference to a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 

regarding electrical issues resulting from misrouting of the wiring harness in certain Mini 

Coopers. (Doc. 115.) Defendant contends that even if Plaintiffs only seek to use the 

TSB in response to Defendant’s assertion of a “state of the art” defense, or an assertion 

by Defendant that there have never been any known battery cable defects in Mini 

Coopers, the Court should prohibit Plaintiffs from referencing the TSB. More 

specifically, Defendant contends that the TSB relates to a different model of Mini Cooper 

than the Mini Cooper at issue in this case, the TSB relates to an issue with the wiring 

harness and not the battery cable, and the TSB relates to a manufacturing defect, not a 

design defect as alleged in this case. 

 Plaintiffs respond that the wiring harness and battery cable are related 

components, and Plaintiffs anticipate Mr. Hogge will testify that the misrouting of the 

wiring harness makes the battery cable more susceptible to chafing. Plaintiff further 

contends that frequently there are superficial, if any, differences between vehicle models 

one year apart, and Mr. Hogge submitted a declaration that the vehicles have no 

difference in how they get their power. 

 The Court does not have sufficient information regarding the expected expert 

testimony as to the components at issue in the TSB and Plaintiff’s theory of the case for 

the Court to determine whether, and to what extent, the TSB is relevant. Therefore, the 

Court will order the parties, within 10 days of the date of this Order, to file supplemental 

briefing that addresses the issues of whether, and to what extent, the TSB is relevant to 

this case, particularly if used in response to Defendant’s assertion of the state of the art 

defense. Where appropriate, the parties shall cite to and provide the Court with relevant 

expected expert testimony and other evidence regarding these issues. The supplemental 

briefing of each side shall be no longer than five pages, excluding exhibits. 

Case 2:13-cv-01228-JZB Document 133 Filed 01/29/16 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

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 

V. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendant’s Experts Regarding the Ryobi Drill Charger as a Competent Ignition Source 

 Plaintiffs seek to exclude Defendant’s expert’s testimony that the Ryobi drill Ms. 

Brown reported as destroyed in the fire was a competent cause of the fire because such 

testimony is unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 and inadmissible speculation under Rule 

702. (Doc. 118.) Defendant responds that it seeks to introduce expert testimony that the 

drill was present at the scene, was generally a competent ignition source, and was not 

retained by Plaintiffs, and, therefore, the true cause of the fire under NFPA 921 must be 

“undermined.” (Doc. 124); NFPA 921 § 19.7 (“. . . the investigator should review the 

entire process, to ensure that all credible data are accounted for and all credible alternate 

cause hypotheses have been considered and eliminated.”). Based on the evidence that the 

drill was present at the scene (the insurance claim by Ms. Brown), and the undisputed 

fact that Plaintiffs did not retain the drill, the Court finds the testimony that the drill was a 

competent ignition source relevant and admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 401; Kennedy v. 

Collagen Corp., 161 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th Cir. 1998) (Alternative or opposing opinions 

or tests do not “preclude the admission of the expert’s testimony—they go to the weight, 

not the admissibility.”). To the extent Plaintiffs seek to undercut that opinion based on 

the placement of the drill or other reasons why they allege the drill could not have caused 

the fire, they are free to do so during cross-examination. Accordingly, the Court will 

deny Plaintiffs’ Motion with regard to testimony that the drill was a competent ignition 

source. 

 With regard to testimony that the Ryobi drill at the scene was a specific model that 

employed a specific type of battery pack, both of which are subject to recalls, the Court 

will grant Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine. The parties confirmed at the Pretrial Conference 

that there is no evidence as to what specific model of drill or battery pack was present at 

the scene. Therefore, there is no basis to assert that the drill or battery pack were specific 

models subject to recalls. At the Conference, Defendant asserted that the recall is 

relevant to rebut any claim by Plaintiffs that a Ryobi drill that is not plugged in or not in 

Case 2:13-cv-01228-JZB Document 133 Filed 01/29/16 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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 

use is still a competent ignition source. The Court cannot make a 403 determination 

based on the facts and evidence presently before it. Therefore, the Court will prohibit 

any reference to the drill and battery pack at the scene being specific models subject to 

recalls until the facts (e.g. strength of evidence of drill/battery removal from scene, 

likelihood that a drill/battery at the scene was a model subject to recall, likelihood a 

drill/battery could have caused the fire) are developed at trial sufficient for the Court to 

make a 403 determination, if necessary. 

VI. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Argument that Plaintiff and/or its Experts Improperly Spoiled Evidence at the Fire Scene 

 As stated above, the Court will allow Defendant to submit evidence to the jury that 

competent ignition sources were not properly retained and, therefore, the cause of the fire 

cannot be determined. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion as to that 

evidence. However, as the parties agreed at the Pretrial Conference, the Court must hear 

evidence at trial to determine whether Plaintiffs, as a matter of law, spoiled evidence and 

are subject to an adverse inference jury instruction. Therefore, the Court will deny the 

Motion without prejudice as to the adverse inference jury instruction. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony re 

Alleged Other Incidents (Doc. 112) is granted in part and denied in part as provided in 

this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude 

References to Opinions of Non-Testifying Experts (Doc. 113) is granted as provided in 

this Order. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude 

Opinions Contained in George Hogge’s and Willie Nelson’s Rebuttal Reports (Doc. 114) 

is granted in part and denied in part as provided in this Order. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that with regard to Defendant’s Motion in Limine 

at Doc. 115, within 10 days of the date of this Order, the parties shall file supplemental 

briefing that addresses the issues of whether, and to what extent, the TSB is relevant to 

Case 2:13-cv-01228-JZB Document 133 Filed 01/29/16 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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 

this case, particularly if used in response to Defendant’s assertion of the state of the art 

defense. Where appropriate, the parties shall cite to and provide the Court with relevant 

expected expert testimony and other evidence regarding these issues. The supplemental 

briefing of each side shall be no longer than five pages, excluding exhibits. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of 

Defendant’s Experts Regarding the Ryobi Drill Charger as a Competent Ignition Source 

(Doc. 118) is granted in part and denied in part as provided in this Order. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Argument that 

Plaintiff and/or its Experts Improperly Spoiled Evidence at the Fire Scene (Doc. 119) is 

denied as to evidence that competent ignition sources were not properly retained, and 

denied without prejudice as to whether Plaintiffs, as a matter of law, spoiled evidence and 

are subject to an adverse inference jury instruction. 

 Dated this 29th day of January, 2016. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01228-JZB Document 133 Filed 01/29/16 Page 8 of 8