Opinion ID: 1367743
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the trial court err in permitting the disputed testimony of defendants' expert witnesses

Text: The testimony of Jeffrey Bookwalter, to which appellants object, was a result of Mr. Bookwalter learning during the course of plaintiffs' examination of its witness that Bookwalter had used a different dimension nail head than Hopkins' witness Mr. Novak. Bookwalter used the dimension supplied by Novak (plaintiffs' witness) rather than that he had used earlier. After the timely objection of plaintiffs' counsel to the testimony of Bookwalter, the court made inquiry and determined that Mr. Bookwalter had relied upon engineering drawings of the nails, which were supplied by the defendants to the plaintiffs during discovery, and which became, during this trial, Exhibit 8. These engineering drawings were drawings of a nail then in use, but were of a dimension different than that which was in use at the time of the accident, March 4, 1986. During plaintiffs' case-in-chief, they called Mr. Novak to establish the actual size of the head of the nail in use at the time of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. It was during this testimony that Mr. Bookwalter learned for the first time that the information upon which he was relying was improper. Mr. Bookwalter then adjusted his analysis to reflect the evidence introduced by plaintiffs in their case-in-chief, as to the actual nail head dimensions. The issue, as to the testimony of Dr. Blotter was framed based upon deposition testimony taken approximately two weeks prior to the trial date, and the proffered testimony of Dr. Blotter at the trial. During the deposition of Dr. Blotter, an expert hired by Duo-Fast, plaintiffs' counsel asked Dr. Blotter whether or not he was going to conduct more tests: Q. Are there any other opinions that you are going to be expressing in this trial in terms of areas of your evaluation that we haven't already discussed that you can think of? A. Well, that will depend upon Mr. Farley [opposing counsel] and it will depend on the development of the case. I think if something comes up that needs a technical response as an expert, then I would respond to that request. . . . . Q. Dr. Blotter, you can understand I am sure also that I am representing a client and I do not want to be ambushed by new information that comes out ten minutes or two days before trial. You understand that, don't you? A. Yes, but could I also expect that you would welcome with a welcome hand anything that would add to the truthfulness as to what would happen. Q. If I had an opportunity to test its truthfulness, yes, but I don't want you to be the sole judge of that. I want to know if you anticipate doing any further work on this [in] advance of trial. Deposition of Dr. Blotter, 87-88 (taken August 31, 1989). On the morning of the day that Dr. Blotter testified at trial: MR. HOWARD [counsel for Hopkins]: Over the break I asked Mr. Farley if there's any additional work that had been done by Dr. Blotter, who is his next expert witness he intends to call. He indicated to me that there was. The court afforded me the opportunity to talk to Dr. Blotter, who's out in the hallway now. I took about 10 minutes to do that. I guess I wanted to place my objection on the record. Also there's work that's been done by Dr. Blotter. We continued his deposition because he had indicated at his deposition, and Mr. Farley had, that he might want to do something more. And yet until I asked Mr. Farley this morning, I still wasn't told what it was. And he did some force tests and he did some other calculations in regard to shear strength, which I haven't had a chance  I have talked to him about it. But as a practical matter, there is no way that I'm going to be able to get into analyzing what he did so ... that I can effectively interrogate him on that. I wanted to place my objection on the record, which is essentially the same objection I placed on the record with regard to Mr. Blotter  Mr. Bookwalter. I'm sorry. That I think it's the defendant's obligation to make that information available to me. Not 15 or 20 minutes before the witness goes on, but long enough for me to be able to meaningfully do something with it. And I guess I wanted to object to that. And he isn't on the stand yet, and I appreciate that. But this is in an effort to try and save some time with the jury. THE COURT: Mr. Farley? MR. FARLEY: Yes, Your Honor. I didn't know what Dr. Blotter had done until I met with him late last night. And there wasn't an opportunity for me to even advise Mr. Howard until this point during the day. The work that he has done since his deposition was discussed at his deposition and Dr. Blotter alluded to it. He said, I have done this type of a qualitative analysis, but I haven't done a quantitative analysis. And essentially that is what has been disclosed by Mr. Howard at this point. And building on the same information that was discussed at his deposition, what his quantitative analysis is based upon that. He's had the opportunity to talk to him, spend whatever time he wishes to spend with him. I don't know what else I can say. He's here, he's available for Mr. Howard to speak with for however long he wishes to speak with him. If he wishes to take his deposition before he testifies, since I know we're going to be going into tomorrow morning, I've got no problem with paying for the deposition. This is a product primarily of the schedule of Dr. Blotter. Period. I mean, he has not, by reason of his schedule, had an opportunity to do this kind of work until just now. THE COURT: What did he do specifically? MR. FARLEY: At the time of his deposition, he had undertaken some trajectory tests and force tests in a qualitative sense in terms of, All right, this is the kind of thing I would like to do. Since his deposition, I learned last night that he has, in essence, done some force tests by going down into his lab. And he's taken the exemplar nailer that he has  which was discussed at his deposition  and he has driven nails with it to determine how much force is necessary in order to drive a nail. The same kind of thing, in fact, it's the same sort of numbers that Mr. Bookwalter has already testified to. In terms of the force required by this nailer in order to drive a nail into the wood. That's, in essence, what he's done in terms of additional tests. From that information, he has then done an analysis, if a nail were to be able to get into a position where it could come out to the back of the raceway, what kind of velocity would it have? He had done velocity tests at the time his deposition was taken. And he, then and now, is prepared to talk about what kind of velocity a nail that would be projected out the back of the nose, if it got itself into that kind of a configuration, would have and whether or not that would be sufficient to reach the plaintiff in the location that he's standing. He has also just utilized the same data that was discussed at Mr. Blotter  Dr. Blotter's deposition and has arrived at a conclusion as to what he believes, how he believes the accident occurred. THE COURT: And is that a conclusion that he had not reached at the time that his deposition was taken? MR. HOWARD: He didn't know any way that it could have occurred. It could have occurred any number of ways. MR. FARLEY: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: How does he conclude the accident occurred now? MR. FARLEY: Based upon what his analysis has been, the substance of his opinion is that the accident could have occurred by a striking  or a high strike on the board. The nail that was intended to go into the board or a second nail that, you know, after driving the nail that was intended to go and there's a bump on the edge of the board, the nail can project into the stack of lumber, and go up, and strike the plaintiff in the eye. That his analysis, based upon the velocity tests that he's done, which had been done previously, was that the velocity of the second nail wasn't sufficient. And even assuming all the things that the plaintiff has assumed as to how this accident occurred, that it was a second nail that got out the back of the raceway, what kind of velocity that kind of a nail would have. THE COURT: What did he conclude? MR. FARLEY: That it did not have sufficient velocity in order to reach the plaintiff. THE COURT: And he didn't give this opinion at the time of the deposition? MR. FARLEY: Not that exact opinion. But he talked about what kind of analysis he had done and what he was going to be doing in order to reach that conclusion. THE COURT: And when did he do this additional work from which he reached  MR. FARLEY: That I can't tell you. Because I don't know. Specifically timewise, I don't know. I don't know when he did it. It may have even been as late as yesterday, for all I know. THE COURT: And this is the first time that it's been disclosed that the witness is going to say A, if the nail came out of the back of the gun  or if the second nail came out of the back of the gun, it wouldn't have sufficient velocity to hit the plaintiff? MR. FARLEY: That specific point, yes. But the methodology and what he was going to be doing in that sense was discussed at his deposition. THE COURT: And B, that this is the first time that the witness has given the opinion that the accident was caused by the intended nail going off in the wrong direction? MR. FARLEY: That was discussed at his deposition, Your Honor, as to whether or not, given the trajectory tests that he had done in the manner that he did them, you know, whether or not a nail  and what height a nail will get to. And he had already done those trajectory tests at the time of his deposition. The conclusion that he draws from that has been a conclusion that he has arrived at since that time, of which I learned for the first time last night. . . . . THE COURT: When was this deposition taken? MR. FARLEY: August 31st. MR. HOWARD: Two weeks ago. THE COURT: When was he hired? MR. FARLEY: When was he hired? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HOWARD: Two months ago. MR. FARLEY: About two months ago. That's about right. But he was made available before that. That was the only time that we could get Dr. Blotter and Ken Howard and me together to take the deposition. THE COURT: But it wouldn't have done any good to do it beforehand because he hadn't completed his work. MR. FARLEY: Yes, I understand that. MR. HOWARD: Your Honor, I would very much like to move this trial along. I realize that we've promised the jury they would be out of here earlier than what they're really going to get out of here. And I guess I want to reserve my objection with regard to Dr. Blotter. And I don't know how else to move it along and reserve my objection, other than to make it and to see what he says. I'm afraid that we're going to anger this jury if we take time off for a deposition. And that's not going to help me anyway because I'd have to pass that information by somebody else. And if we delay for a deposition or something, I mean, I'd have to get back ahold of Dr. Adams. And I'd have to find out what he thought about the information so he could help me analyze it so I could make some head or tails of it. So a short recess to take his deposition is really not going to do any good. And a long one, I think, might be counterproductive. THE COURT: Of course I'm going on the representations that have been made at this point and not on what Dr. Blotter has actually testified to as to what he did. Based on what you've said, and I can  Mr. Howard, I can understand your problem. Because it is very definitely throwing a new wrinkle into, it seems to me, throwing a new wrinkle into the case. He's presenting a completely new opinion, even though, yes, you say, Well, he warned us that he might come up with something new. But he didn't bother coming up with something new until, as I understand it, or didn't tell anybody about it until last night. And it seems to me, from what I've heard at this point, that it's not because the defendant is sandbagging. And it's not because the plaintiff has failed to be diligent in pursuing its discovery. It seems to me that the problem is that the witness didn't get the work done because of the press of other business. So I don't think, from the point of view of looking at, Well, did the plaintiff  defendant fail to seasonably supplement his responses to discovery? The answer is no. Using a double negative, no, he didn't fail to do so because he didn't know about it. And 26(e)(4) says that if a party fails to seasonably supplement his responses, then the court may exclude the testimony. So I don't think that there's a predicate for excluding the testimony at this point. If I felt that, you know, this was a sandbagging situation, I'd rule otherwise. . . . . I don't think it comes within  well, I think the appropriate exercise of discretion would be to permit the testimony. Tr., 902-13 (emphasis added). As the above excerpt displays, the trial court inquired into and was made aware of the problem presented to the plaintiffs by the late discovery. The standard of review applicable is that of abuse of discretion in ruling on admissibility of expert testimony. Cosgrove v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 117 Idaho 470, 788 P.2d 1293 (1989); Sidwell v. William Prym, Inc., 112 Idaho 76, 730 P.2d 996 (1986); Stoddard v. Nelson, 99 Idaho 293, 581 P.2d 339 (1978). The trial court in this case, as set forth herein, correctly perceived the issue of admissibility of the expert testimony of both Bookwalter and Blotter, as one involving discretion. The trial court made an intensive inquiry into what tests were conducted by the witness pre and post-deposition. The trial court entertained the argument of counsel on this and related evidentiary issues. The trial court acted within its discretion and applied the correct legal standards and clearly reached its decision by exercise of reason. Sun Valley Shopping Center v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991); Braley v. Pangburn, 118 Idaho 575, 798 P.2d 34 (1990). Under the circumstances presented, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exclude the expert testimony in this case.