Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc. v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedApril 3, 2020
Docket0:18-cv-63130
StatusUnknown

This text of Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc. v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. (Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc. v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc. v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., (S.D. Fla. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NOS. 18-CV-63130-RUIZ/STRAUSS 19-CV-61881

OHIO STATE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Defendant. /

MIGUEL PORRAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

Defendant. ____________________________________________/

OMNIBUS ORDER ON DE 142, 145, AND 147 THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the following motions: (1) Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion to Strike the Expert Report of Sarah Butler as Untimely and to Exclude Her Testimony and Incorporated Memorandum of Law [DE 142]1 (“Butler Motion”); (2) Defendant Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude the Expert Reports of Christine Cole, Douglas Hermann, and D.C. Sharp [DE 145] (“Defendant’s Daubert Motion”); and (3) Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion to Exclude Defendant Point Blank Enterprises’ Class Certification Experts and Expert

1 Unless specifically noted, all “DE” references are to docket entries in Case No. 18-cv-63130. Opinions, Reports and Testimony and Memorandum of Law in Support [DE 147] (“Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion”). The Butler Motion is before the Court on referral [DE 83] from the District Court for disposition of all discovery matters. Defendant’s Daubert Motion and Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion were referred to the Court pursuant to the District Court’s Order Referring

Motions to Magistrate Judge [DE 151]. The Court has reviewed all three motions and the responses and replies thereto, as well as all of the expert reports at issue. The Court also held a hearing (for approximately five hours) on the motions on February 26, 2020.2 For the reasons discussed herein, the Butler Motion [DE 142] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, Defendant’s Daubert Motion [DE 145] is DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion [DE 147] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.3 I. BACKGROUND4 This is a products liability case (or, rather, two consolidated cases) in which Plaintiffs seek certification of certain classes. To paint a very simple picture in elementary terms, Defendant makes bulletproof vests. Many police officers and others buy those bulletproof vests. End users—

the individuals who ultimately wear the vests—often purchase their vests from distributors and not directly from Defendant. The vests that Defendant manufactures include concealable vests. Defendant manufactures some models of concealable vests with a Self-Suspending Ballistic

2 At the hearing, the Court asked the parties to provide a demonstration with certain bulletproof vests and body armor materials. This was done solely for the Court to be able to visualize some of the products at issue. The demonstration had no impact on the Court’s rulings set forth herein.

3 Defendant’s Daubert Motion [DE 145] and Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion [DE 147] are moot in part. Defendant’s Daubert Motion was withdrawn as to experts Christine Cole and Douglas Hermann, and Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion was withdrawn as to experts Christian Page and Zdravko Salipur. See DE 195.

4 Plaintiffs and Defendant may describe some of the facts contained herein differently from one another. Nevertheless, those differences have not impacted the Court’s rulings herein in any way. System (“SSBS”). It also manufactures other models of concealable vests that are more commonly referred to as traditional vests. Both SSBS vests and traditional vests have two main components—ballistic panels and a carrier. The ballistic panels are designed to stop bullets, and the carriers hold the ballistic panels.

With traditional vests, the carrier is a single piece. The front and back of the carrier are connected by shoulder straps sewn into the vest. On the other hand, the front and back of SSBS vests are two separate pieces. Shoulder straps—that are not sewn into the panels or carrier—are then used to connect the front to the back. It is Defendant’s SSBS vests that are at issue in these putative class action cases. Plaintiffs allege that the SSBS vests manufactured by Defendant are defective (from the time of purchase) and that they can, and have, fallen apart or fallen down while officers are in the line of duty. Plaintiffs, however, do not contend that the ballistic panels themselves are defective.5 The plaintiffs in the first putative class action case (18-cv-63130; the “2018 Case”) bring breach of warranty claims in Counts I and II and a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair

Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) in Count III.6 In the second putative class action case (19-cv- 61881; the “2019 Case”),7 a single plaintiff brings breach of warranty claims in Counts I and II, a California False Advertising Law (“FAL”) claim in Count III, a California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) claim in Count IV, and a fraudulent concealment claim in Count V. In Plaintiffs’

5 The parties dispute whether the shoulder straps for SSBS vests connect to the carrier or to the ballistic panels themselves. Whatever the case may be, it is not material to this Order.

6 Count III was previously dismissed in a limited manner that does not affect the motions at issue in this Order. Specifically, the claims of the Ohio State Troopers Association and the International Union of Police Associations on behalf of the putative FDUTPA class were dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. DE 53 at pp. 21-22.

7 In certain instances below, this Order refers to “this case.” Unless stated otherwise, references to “this case” encompass both the 2018 Case and the 2019 Case. class certification motion [DE 159], the plaintiffs in the 2018 Case seek certification of a FDUTPA class and a warranty class. The plaintiff in the 2019 Case seeks certification of a California warranty class and a California UCL/FAL class concerning the UCL, FAL, and fraudulent concealment claims.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS A. DAUBERT “Under [Federal] Rule [of Evidence] 702 and Daubert, district courts must act as ‘gatekeepers’ which admit expert testimony only if it is both reliable and relevant.” Rink v. Cheminova, Inc., 400 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993)). The court’s inquiry, however, is a flexible one. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594. For an expert’s testimony to be admissible, a party must demonstrate that the following elements are satisfied (by a preponderance of the evidence): (1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) the methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable as determined by the sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert; and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application of scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.

Rink, 400 F. 3d at 1291-92 (quoting City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chems., Inc., 158 F.3d 548, 562 (11th Cir. 1998)). While an analysis of the foregoing elements may necessarily entail some overlap, the concepts of qualification (first element), reliability (second element), and fit or helpfulness (third element)8 are nonetheless distinct concepts that should not be conflated. Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003).

8 The third element “goes primarily to relevance.” Seamon v.

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

Related

City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc.
158 F.3d 548 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Richard Junior Frazier
387 F.3d 1244 (Eleventh Circuit, 2004)
Rink v. Cheminova, Inc.
400 F.3d 1286 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
OFS FITEL, LLC v. Epstein, Becker and Green, PC
549 F.3d 1344 (Eleventh Circuit, 2008)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
133 S. Ct. 1426 (Supreme Court, 2013)
Rollins, Inc. v. Heller
454 So. 2d 580 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
KIA MOTORS AMERICA CORPORATION v. Butler
985 So. 2d 1133 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
In Re Vioxx Class Cases
180 Cal. App. 4th 116 (California Court of Appeal, 2009)
Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Air Capital Group, LLC
614 F. App'x 460 (Eleventh Circuit, 2015)
Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc.
802 F.3d 979 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Ernestine Mitchell v. Ford Motor Company
318 F. App'x 821 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)
Seamon Ex Rel. Estate of Seamon v. Remington Arms Co.
813 F.3d 983 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
Geri Siano Carriuolo v. General Motors Company
823 F.3d 977 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
Pablo Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
920 F.3d 710 (Eleventh Circuit, 2019)
Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc.
932 F.3d 811 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merchandise Corp.
97 F. Supp. 3d 485 (S.D. New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc. v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohio-state-troopers-association-inc-v-point-blank-enterprises-inc-flsd-2020.