Fontenot v. Union Tank Car Co

W.D. Louisiana

Fontenot v. Union Tank Car Co

DecidedFebruary 17, 2022

Docket6:20-cv-00115

StatusUnknown

This text of Fontenot v. Union Tank Car Co (Fontenot v. Union Tank Car Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fontenot v. Union Tank Car Co, (W.D. La. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

JOSEPH W FONTENOT CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00115 VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS UNION TANK CAR CO MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL WHITEHURST

ORDER Presently before the Court is the Daubert Motion to Exclude Expert Reports/Testimony of Plaintiffs Experts [ECF No. 24] filed by Defendant. Defendant argues that the expert reports and opinions of Plaintiff's experts, Enrique Medina and Dr. Josef Thundiyil, should be excluded because they provide “no testable methodology and only offer[] conclusory speculative opinions.” The Court has reviewed these reports and finds that the reports include the credentials of both experts as well as the materials they relied upon to reach their conclusions. For example, Mr. Medina cites all the medical information that he reviewed regarding Plaintiff as well as the studies that he relied upon to reach his conclusions. Also, Dr. Thundivil cited his medical credentials as well as the medical information regarding Plaintiff which he examined to reach his medical conclusions. The Court’s gate-keeping function under Daubert ensures that “expert testimony is admissible only if it is both relevant and reliable.” Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2002). Here, Defendant’s complaints about the adequacy of Plaintiffs expert reports can be addressed through appropriate expert discovery and, at trial, through “lvjigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof [as these are] the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Jd. (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). In sum, Defendant’s arguments go to the weight to be given to the testimony in the reports not their admissibility. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT the Daubert Motion to Exclude Expert Reports/Testimony of Plaintiff's ‘Experts [ECF No. 24] is DENIED. THUS DONE in Chambers on this 17th day of February, 2022.

ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

JOSEPH W FONTENOT CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00115 VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS UNION TANK CAR CO MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL WHITEHURST

ORDER Presently before the Court is the Daubert Motion to Exclude Expert Reports/Testimony of Plaintiffs Experts [ECF No. 24] filed by Defendant. Defendant argues that the expert reports and opinions of Plaintiff's experts, Enrique Medina and Dr. Josef Thundiyil, should be excluded because they provide “no testable methodology and only offer[] conclusory speculative opinions.” The Court has reviewed these reports and finds that the reports include the credentials of both experts as well as the materials they relied upon to reach their conclusions. For example, Mr. Medina cites all the medical information that he reviewed regarding Plaintiff as well as the studies that he relied upon to reach his conclusions. Also, Dr. Thundivil cited his medical credentials as well as the medical information regarding Plaintiff which he examined to reach his medical conclusions. The Court’s gate-keeping function under Daubert ensures that “expert testimony is admissible only if it is both relevant and reliable.” Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2002). Here, Defendant’s complaints about the adequacy of Plaintiffs expert reports can be addressed through appropriate expert discovery and, at trial, through “lvjigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof [as these are] the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Jd. (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). In sum, Defendant’s arguments go to the weight to be given to the testimony in the reports not their admissibility. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT the Daubert Motion to Exclude Expert Reports/Testimony of Plaintiff's ‘Experts [ECF No. 24] is DENIED. THUS DONE in Chambers on this 17th day of February, 2022.

ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fontenot v. Union Tank Car Co, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fontenot-v-union-tank-car-co-lawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack