UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-22783-BLOOM/Louis

KATHRYN BIRREN and 

MANDY BIRREN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.,

a Liberian corporation, 

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEMONSTRATIVE AID

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD’s 

(“Defendant”) Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Objections to Plaintiffs’ Demonstrative Aid, 

ECF No. [154] (“Objections”), filed on March 29, 2021. Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition, 

ECF No. [158] (“Response”). The Court has carefully reviewed the Objections, the video 

animations submitted by Plaintiffs, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise 

fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Objections are overruled. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs initiated this maritime personal injury action against Defendant on July 7, 2020. 

See generally ECF No. [1]. Plaintiffs seek damages for an incident that occurred on September 7, 

2019, while Plaintiffs were passengers aboard Defendant’s cruise ship, Harmony of the Seas. See 

id. ¶¶ 14-15. 

Defendant now requests that the Court preclude Plaintiffs from introducing six (6) video 

animations created by Dr. Ying Lu (“Dr. Lu”), arguing that the animations improperly invade the 

province of the jury. See ECF No. [154] at 2. Defendant further submits that animations were 

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2022 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-22783-BLOOM/Louis

2

untimely produced after the Daubert motion deadline and that Plaintiffs failed to disclose Dr. Lu’s 

qualifications and methodology – including an analysis of kinetic energy – to arrive at her

conclusions. See id. at 3. Defendant finally argues that the animations constitute speculative

hearsay and that Defendant will be unfairly prejudiced because the animations will leave a 

“particularly potent image in the jurors’ minds.” Id. at 5.

Plaintiffs respond that the animations were timely disclosed. See ECF No. [158] at 1-2. 

Plaintiffs argue that they disclosed Dr. Lu’s qualifications, methodology, and animations before 

the expert discovery deadline and the Daubert motion deadline. See id. Plaintiffs also argue that 

Dr. Lu is qualified and that Dr. Lu’s methodology is reliable and does not require further analysis 

of kinetic energy. See id. at 4. Plaintiffs further argue that Dr. Lu’s animations support Dr. Lu’s

expert opinion that the twisting motion externally applied upon Plaintiff Kathryn Birren’s cervical 

spine and lumbar spine during the incident was the source of her acute physical disc disruption. 

See id. at 3-4.

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

The Eleventh Circuit has held that the “admissibility of demonstrative evidence is largely 

within the discretion of the trial court.” Bury v. Marietta Dodge, 692 F.2d 1335, 1338 (11th Cir. 

1982). For a demonstrative aid to be admissible, “it is not required that all the conditions shall be 

precisely reproduced, but they must be so nearly the same in substantial particulars as to afford a 

fair comparison in respect to the particular issue to which the [demonstrative aid] is directed.” 

Burchfield v. CSX Transp., Inc., 636 F.3d 1330, 1336–37 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). 

“Further, experimental or demonstrative evidence, like any evidence offered at trial, should be 

excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, 

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2022 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-22783-BLOOM/Louis

3

confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted).

III. DISCUSSION 

The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s arguments. First, Plaintiffs’ attached exhibit 

clearly indicates that Plaintiffs disclosed Dr. Lu’s qualifications, methodology, and animations on 

June 18, 2021, before the expert discovery deadline and the deadline for Daubert motions. See 

ECF No. [158-1] at 1. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ disclosures were not untimely. Second, given that Dr. 

Lu’s qualifications, methodology, and animations were timely disclosed, any challenge to Dr. Lu 

should have been made in Defendant’s Daubert Motion. Further, the Court is persuaded that Dr. 

Lu’s experience in the fields of biomedical and biomechanical engineering qualifies Dr. Lu to offer 

her expert opinion and animations on Plaintiff Kathryn Birren’s condition. The Court also finds 

Dr. Lu’s methodology of reviewing various medical records and the CCTV footage of the incident 

and using her expertise in the fields of biomedical and biomechanical engineering to be reliable. 

Her expert opinions and animations will also be helpful to the jury who would otherwise be unable 

to understand the impact that the elevator doors could have had on Plaintiff Kathryn Birren’s back 

and neck. See ECF No. [158-3] at 2-3. 

Finally, to the extent that Defendant argues that the animations constitute speculative

hearsay and Defendant will be unfairly prejudiced because the animations will leave a “particularly 

potent image in the jurors’ minds,” the Court is not persuaded. A comparison of the animations 

and the CCTV footage shows that the animations depict the incident in a substantially similar 

manner as the CCTV footage in all material aspects as to create a fair depiction. Indeed, Defendant 

fails to specify any material differences between the CCTV footage and the animations. See ECF 

No. [154] at 4 (describing the animations as “a reenactment”). Further, the animations illustrate 

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2022 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-22783-BLOOM/Louis

4

Dr. Lu’s theory of the incident and demonstrate how her theory is purportedly consistent with the 

other evidence. The Court is confident that the jury will understand that the animations are intended 

for demonstrative purposes to illustrate Plaintiffs’ theory of the case, rather than a depiction of 

actual events that the jurors are bound to accept as true. Thus, the Court determines that the 

probative value of the animations is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, 

confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendant’s Objections, ECF No. [154], are OVERRULED. 

2. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to introduce at trial the six (6) video animations as 

demonstrative aids.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on April 1, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22783-BB Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2022 Page 4 of 4