UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

MELANIE BECKEMEYER,

Plaintiff, 

v.

GELCO CORPORATION, etc.,

Defendant.

][

][

][

][

][

][

][

][

][

][

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00695

JUDGE BARRETT

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

EXCLUDE THE OPINIONS AND 

TESTMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S 

EXPERT STEVE RUCKER, CIH

In accordance with Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Defendant, Gelco 

Corporation, nka Element Fleet Corporation, respectfully moves this Court to exclude the 

opinions and report of Plaintiff’s expert Steve Rucker, CIH. Rucker tested the RAV4 for mold 

22 months after the last use by Plaintiff, after it had been owned by numerous dealerships and 

private owners, such that its findings are irrelevant. Rucker’s air sampling failed to employ 

proper controls and his vacuum accumulation of dust under the passenger seat failed to obtain an 

appropriate sample size to meet test criteria. Moreover, his conclusion that the test showed 

“elevated” levels of endotoxin is vague, unreliable, and meaningless, such that it does nothing to 

aid the trier of fact in this case. 

A Brief in Support is attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Colin P. Sammon

MICHAEL A. PAGLIA, ESQ. (0070542)

COLIN P. SAMMON, ESQ. (0076011)

RITZLER COUGHLIN & PAGLIA, LTD.

1360 East Ninth Street

1000 IMG Center

Cleveland, OH 44114

Case: 1:17-cv-00695-MRB Doc #: 52 Filed: 04/15/19 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 1107
2

Office (216) 241-8333

Facsimile (216) 241-5890

csammon@rcp-attorneys.com

Attorneys for Defendant Gelco Corporation

Case: 1:17-cv-00695-MRB Doc #: 52 Filed: 04/15/19 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 1108
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

MELANIE BECKEMEYER,

Plaintiff, 

v.

GELCO CORPORATION, etc.,

Defendant.

][

][

][

][

][

][

][

][

][

][

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00695

JUDGE BARRETT

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

EXCLUDE THE OPINIONS AND 

TESTMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S 

EXPERT STEVE RUCKER, CIH

In this action, Plaintiff alleges she was injured during the course of periodically driving 

her company-issued Toyota RAV4 from May 6, 2016 through September 23, 2016. She alleges 

that the RAV4 was contaminated or infested with mold, and that her inhalation exposure to that 

contamination caused her to suffer physical effects including an invented condition which is not 

a generally recognized medical condition - “Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome” - and 

even brain injury.

Science and case law hold that an objective physician or scientist would not – and could 

not – determine that a plaintiff’s alleged illness was caused by exposure to mold without first 

having the exposure data during the relevant time of exposure. In this case, there is no dispute 

that such exposure data is nonexistent. Plaintiff’s last date of possession of the RAV4 was 

September 23, 2016. It was then stored, sold at an auction on October 19, 2016. It was then sold 

in November 18, 2016, to Deborah and Henry Ahaus of Sunman, Indiana. In January 2017,

Roger Butler of Frankfort, Indiana, purchased the RAV4 from Del Real, a used car dealership in 

Frankfort. Mr. Butler traded the vehicle in to Rohrman Subaru after logging approximately

6,000 miles on it. On July 9, 2018 – some twenty-two months after Plaintiff last operated the 

Case: 1:17-cv-00695-MRB Doc #: 52 Filed: 04/15/19 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 1109
4

RAV4 and five owners (including dealerships) later – Plaintiff had her Industrial Hygienist

inspect the RAV4 for mold. His report is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, solely for the purposes of 

this Motion. 

Yet Rucker’s testing, both dust and air sampling, was flawed. According to Jeremey 

Porter, Rucker conducted air sampling did not include air testing outside the building which 

housed the RAV4 in 2018 or take a control sample outside the vehicle, which is standard 

practice. Additionally, his sampling for mold dust and endotoxins was improperly conducted. 

The test results showed that “measurable dust was less than minimum required, entire filter 

used.” Thus, the sampled dust was insufficient to meet the laboratory’s protocol. (Jeremy Porter 

Aff., attached hereto as Exhibit 2.) Dr. Chiodo, a Certified Industrial Hygeinist, agrees with this 

assessment. (Ernest Chiodo Affidavit, attached hereto as Exhibit 3, at ¶ 29-31.)

Rucker’s report and conclusion should be excluded because it does not bear on the 

condition of the RAV4 in 2016. It is patently irrelevant. Moreover, the testing procedure was 

flawed in several respects and therefore, by definition, lacks the reliability necessary to be 

admissible under Daubert.

For the foregoing reasons, and those expressed in the attached Affidavits of Jeremy 

Porter and Dr. Chiodo, Mr. Rucker’s opinions, methodology, and conclusions are utterly 

unreliable and not scientifically based such that they must be excluded under Daubert.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Colin P. Sammon

MICHAEL A. PAGLIA, ESQ. (0070542)

COLIN P. SAMMON, ESQ. (0076011)

RITZLER COUGHLIN & PAGLIA, LTD.

1360 East Ninth Street

1000 IMG Center

Cleveland, OH 44114

Case: 1:17-cv-00695-MRB Doc #: 52 Filed: 04/15/19 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 1110
5

Office (216) 241-8333

Facsimile (216) 241-5890

csammon@rcp-attorneys.com

Attorneys for Defendant Gelco Corporation

Case: 1:17-cv-00695-MRB Doc #: 52 Filed: 04/15/19 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 1111
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 15, 2019 a copy of the foregoing was filed 

electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all registered parties by operation of the 

Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

/s/Colin P. Sammon 

COLIN P. SAMMON (0076011)

Case: 1:17-cv-00695-MRB Doc #: 52 Filed: 04/15/19 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 1112