Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01062/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01062-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Burt Feuerstein and Janet Shalwitz, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:12-cv-01062 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

The Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., )

Gorilla Ladder Company, Tricam )

Industries, Inc., Trex Company, Inc., )

and A.B.C. Corp., ) [Re: Motion at Docket 121]

)

Defendants. )

)

)

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 121, Plaintiffs Burt Feuerstein (“Feuerstein”) and Janet Shalwitz

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the testimony of Jon

Ver Halen (“Ver Halen”), expert witness for defendants The Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.

(“Home Depot”) and Tricam Industries, Inc. (“Tricam”; collectively “Ladder Defendants”).

The memorandum and documents in support are at docket 122. Ladder Defendants

respond at docket 127. Plaintiffs reply at docket 134. Oral argument was requested,

but would not be of additional assistance to the court. 

Case 2:12-cv-01062-JWS Document 144 Filed 06/12/14 Page 1 of 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

II. BACKGROUND

The parties are familiar with the background of the accident in this case and the

claims made by Plaintiffs against the Ladder Defendants. A full recitation of the facts

and claims is located in the court’s order at docket 140. 

Ladder Defendants hired Ver Halen as an expert witness. His expert report and

professional qualifications are in the record at docket 122-1. In his report, Ver Halen

critiques the methodology and opinions of Plaintiffs’ experts, explains the tests he

conducted, and sets forth six concluding opinions regarding Feuerstein’s ladder

accident.1 Plaintiffs argue that some of Ver Halen’s opinions should be deemed

inadmissible. First, Plaintiffs argue that Ver Halen is not qualified to offer opinions

regarding the slip resistance of Feuerstein’s decking or to critique the slip resistance

test results obtained by their expert, Jay Preston (“Preston”). Second, they argue that

Ver Halen cannot give his opinion about the placement and set up of Feuerstein’s

ladder on the day of the accident because his opinion is based on inaccurate and

unreliable photographs. Third, they argue that Ver Halen’s test to demonstrate that the

type of ladder used by Feuerstein, the Tricam AL-22 (“AL-22"), cannot “walk” is

unreliable because Ver Halen lost the original video recording of him conducting the

test. Ver Halen had to repeat the test and create another recording . Lastly, they argue

that Ver Halen’s opinions about the AL-22's compliance with the governing safety

standards—ANSI A14.2— should be excluded because it is based on testing he did in

2002 with a different model of the AL-22. 

1Doc. 122-1 at p. 13.

-2-

Case 2:12-cv-01062-JWS Document 144 Filed 06/12/14 Page 2 of 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

III. DISCUSSION

The court has broad discretion when ruling on motions in limine.

2

 Rule 702

permits opinion testimony by an expert as long as the witness is qualified and the

witness’s opinion is relevant and reliable.3 “[A] district court’s inquiry into admissibility is

a flexible one.”4

 The purpose of the district court’s inquiry is “to screen the jury from

unreliable nonsense opinions” and not to “exclude opinions merely because they are

impeachable.”5

 The district court functions as a “gatekeeper, not a fact finder.”6

Under Rule 702, a witness is “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,

experience, training, or education.”7 “Expert opinion testimony is relevant if the

knowledge underlying it has a valid connection to the pertinent inquiry. And it is reliable

if the knowledge underlying it has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of

the relevant discipline.”8 The district court’s task in screening a scientific opinion for

reliability was addressed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.9and its

progeny. “The court must assess the expert’s reasoning or methodology, using as

appropriate criteria such as testability, publication in peer-reviewed literature, known or

2See Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002); see also

Campbell Indus. v. M/V Gemini, 619 F.2d 24, 27 (9th Cir. 1980) (“A district court is vested with

broad discretion to make . . . evidentiary rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly

trial.”).

3Fed. R. Evid. 702.

4City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., Nos. 12-55147, 12-55193, 2014 WL 1724505, at

*3 (9th Cir. May 2, 2014).

5Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969 (9th Cir. 2013).

6Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 565 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted).

7Fed. R. Evid. 702.

8Primiano, 598 F.3d at 565 (internal quotations omitted).

9509 U.S. 579 (1993).

-3-

Case 2:12-cv-01062-JWS Document 144 Filed 06/12/14 Page 3 of 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

potential error rate, and general acceptance.”10 However, these factors are “not

definitive, and the trial court has discretion to decide how to test an expert’s reliability as

well as whether the testimony is reliable, based on the particular circumstances of the

particular case.”11 If an expert does not “conduct his or her own research, independent

of the litigation, on the subject of the testimony, the district court must determine

whether there exists any ‘objective, verifiable evidence that the testimony is based on

scientifically valid principles.’”12

 When non-scientific testimony is at issue, the “Daubert

factors (peer review, publication, potential error rate, etc.) simply are not applicable

. . . .”13 The reliability of such non-scientific testimony depends more “on the knowledge

and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory behind it.”14

“It is the proponent of the expert who has the burden of proving admissibility.”15

Admissibility must be established by preponderance of the evidence.16 The party

presenting the expert has the burden to show that the expert’s findings are based on

“sound science” and that the expert’s methodology is capable of independent

validation.17

10Pomona, 2014 WL 1724505, at *3.

11Primiano, 598 F.3d at 564 (internal quotations omitted). 

12Domingo ex rel. Domingo v. T.K., 289 F.3d 600, 605 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Daubert

v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1317–18 (9th Cir.1995)).

13Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1017 (9th Cir. 2004)

(quoting United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005)).

14

Id. (quoting Hankey, 299 F.3d at 1069) (emphasis in original).

15Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir. 1996).

16Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n.10.

17Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995). 

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-01062-JWS Document 144 Filed 06/12/14 Page 4 of 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

A. Ver Halen’s opinions regarding slip resistance 

Plaintiffs argue that Ver Halen is not qualified to testify about the slip resistance

of Feuerstein’s Trex decking and thus cannot offer opinions about Preston’s slip

resistance testing. In their reply, Plaintiffs shift their argument and assert that his

opinions are not reliable. Ver Halen’s curriculum vitae indicates that he has an

engineering degree and many years’ experience as an engineer. He was a member of

the ANSI committee that governs ladder safety. Thus, he is qualified to offer opinions

about ladder accidents and ladder safety standards, including ladder slip resistance. 

Moreover, based on his report and his training as an engineer and his experience in

accident reconstruction, the court concludes that Ver Halen is sufficiently qualified to

offer his opinion about the data Preston obtained during his slip resistance testing. 

That is, he can comment about the scientific errors in Preston’s analysis of the test

data, discuss the variability of Preston’s results, and offer his opinion on what could

cause such a variance.

However, Ladder Defendants’ response brief appears to expand the scope of

Ver Halen’s expert report and the opinions he plans to offer. They assert that Ver

Halen not only criticized Preston’s results, but also came to the conclusion that the

“coefficient of friction” (“COF”) created by the accident ladder’s feet on the Trex decking

was in fact sufficient to support Feuerstein on the ladder. While Ver Halen’s report

states that a COF of .25 would be needed “to resist the static loads of the user”

generally, he does not state how he arrived at that number or whether Feuerstein’s

ladder provided the necessary COF of .25.18 Ladder Defendants repeatedly refer to the

fact that Ver Halen conducted his own tests to determine the COF of the accident

ladder’s feet on the Trex deck, but the record does not show that Ver Halen ran specific

COF tests or conducted an analysis to determine the minimum COF needed to prevent

a slip out. Ver Halen’s report describes only two tests: a simple test climb of the ladder

18Doc. 122-1 at 10.

-5-

Case 2:12-cv-01062-JWS Document 144 Filed 06/12/14 Page 5 of 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

at the scene and then another simple test climb done with an exemplar ladder on Trex

decking to disprove Plaintiffs’ theory that the ladder could walk. 

Ladder Defendants assert that Ver Halen concluded that the COF of the ladder’s

feet was adequate by “compar[ing] Preston’s results with COF test results obtained as

part of Trex’s quality control, using the same [measuring instrument] employed by

Preston on Feuerstein’s deck.”19 But Defendants do not put forth any evidence to

confirm that such a comparison was indeed the basis for Ver Halen’s conclusion. Ver

Halen’s report does not discuss such a comparison, and Ladder Defendants did not

submit deposition testimony or an affidavit from Ver Halen to support such an assertion. 

Ladder Defendants assert that Trex’s COF tests results ranged from .58 – .68 (in

comparison with Preston’s range of .22 – .42), but Ladder Defendants do not provide

the court with a copy of Trex’s COF data for verification. 

Ladder Defendants’ brief also contains quotes from Ver Halen’s deposition

where he testifies about the adequate COF needed to safely hold Feuerstein on the

ladder based upon his calculations, but that deposition testimony is not included as an

exhibit. Furthermore, the deposition testimony quoted is conclusory in nature and does

not sufficiently explain how Ver Halen calculated the COF or what his analysis entailed. 

Thus, Ladder Defendants have not put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ver

Halen can reliably provide his own opinion about the adequacy of the ladder’s slip

resistance based on his COF calculations, which have not been sufficiently described to

the court.

B. Ver Halen’s reliance on photographs

Ver Halen’s report concludes that one potential cause of the accident was the

shallow angle of the ladder set up. He bases that conclusion on a photograph provided

by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs have subsequently disputed the accuracy and relevancy

of the photograph. Feuerstein clarified in his deposition that the photograph is merely

19Doc. 127 at p. 3.

-6-

Case 2:12-cv-01062-JWS Document 144 Filed 06/12/14 Page 6 of 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

an approximation of where the ladder was set up and not evidence of the angle at

which it was set. While Feuerstein testified at his deposition that he had the angle set

up properly at 75 degrees and not at the angle in the photograph, that statement is

impeachable based on the existence of the photograph which Plaintiffs’ provided to

Ladder Defendants in discovery and based on Feuerstein’s testimony that the

photograph showed the approximate location of the ladder’s feet. So any opinions and

conclusions Ver Halen may have drawn from the photo, while impeachable, are

nonetheless admissible. Ver Halen can provide testimony regarding the safety issues

present in the event Feuerstein set up the ladder at the angle depicted in the

photograph. 

C. Lost recording

Ver Halen performed testing to test Plaintiffs’ theory that Feuerstein’s AL-22

“walked,” causing it to slip out underneath Feuerstein. Ver Halen set up the ladder at

an appropriate angle on Feuerstein’s Trex decking and tested it for stability and

slippage. His reports states that no walking or slippage occurred. He also set up an

exemplar ladder on Trex decking to determine if the ladder could walk when set up and

used as it was on the day of the accident. He positioned the ladder at 75 degrees and

had a 210-pound user (the approximate weight of Feuerstein) climb up and down the

ladder multiple times to test whether the ladder would shift weight between its feet and

“walk.” According to the report, the ladder did not move. The report indicates that a

video was made of the “walking test,” but Ver Halen was unable to locate a copy of the

recording to bring to his deposition. He then re-ran the test and created another

recording. 

Plaintiffs assert that any testimony regarding Ver Halen’s “walking test” should be

inadmissible because of the lost recording. The court disagrees. The basic test Ver

Halen conducted to determine if the ladder could walk is described in his Rule 26

report. While the original video footage was lost, he re-ran the same test and had it

recorded. ‘Ver Halen can discuss the results of the second test and the results can be

-7-

Case 2:12-cv-01062-JWS Document 144 Filed 06/12/14 Page 7 of 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

verified through the video. Any concern Plaintiffs have about the differences between

the two tests or about the loss of the original data can be addressed during cross

examination. 

D. ANSI standards

Lastly, Plaintiffs assert that Ver Halen’s opinion that the AL-22 meets the

governing ANSI safety standard should be excluded. They base this argument on the

fact that Ver Halen’s own ANSI testing on the AL-22 ladder was done in 2002 on a

different model of the AL-22. While Plaintiffs’ point is well taken, the court concludes

that this issue goes more to weight than admissibility. Moreover, Ver Halen’s opinion is

not based solely on his own testing. He also bases his opinion on the pre-purchase test

report for the model of AL-22 that Feuerstein owns. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not dispute

that the AL-22 passed pre-purchase testing for ANSI compliance. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing discussion, Plaintiffs’ motion in limine at docket 121 is

DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.

Ver Halen may provide his opinion about the scientific errors in Preston’s

analysis of the test data, discuss the variability of Preston’s results, and offer his

opinion on the things that could cause such a variance. However, for the reasons

discussed above, Ver Halen cannot testify that in his opinion the ladder’s feet were

adequately slip resistant based on his COF calculations. Ver Halen may otherwise

testify as indicated in his Rule 26 report. 

DATED this 12th day of June 2014.

 /s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-8-

Case 2:12-cv-01062-JWS Document 144 Filed 06/12/14 Page 8 of 8