A propane grill exploded; the injured plaintiff won a judgment against the supplier of the propane tank, and the Fifth Circuit reversed in Johnston v. Ferrellgas, Inc.:

[T]he circumstantial evidence on which the Johnstons rely does not cure the want of proof that the tank was defective when it left Ferrellgas’s possession. This is not a res ipsa case. Indeed, the Johnstons did not advance that theory of liability before the district court or before us. In sum, the Plaintiff’s expert admitted that he could not say the tank was defective at the time it left Ferrellgas, making his prior comments about the tank’s condition at that time pure speculation; the tank functioned properly before Johnston used it; the tank and seal are not sealed containers; and both parties agree Ferrellgas successfully refilled the tank with gas under highpressure months before the accident. There is no reasonable basis on which the jury could find the Johnstons met their burden.

No. 23-10019 (March 21, 2024). A dissent saw matters differently.

The issue in Stewart v. Gruber was the exclusion of an untimely expert report; among other points made in affirming, the Fifth Circuit noted:

Plaintiffs fail to identify any precedent barring courts from considering whether the proponent of an untimely expert report declined an opportunity to cure such untimeliness by refusing to join a motion to continue that would have extended deadlines for both parties and therefore lessened any prejudice to the opposing party. Put another way, Plaintiffs were only willing to have extra time for them, not a similar extension for the Defendants who would need to, of course, have an expert that addressed the Plaintiffs’ expert. Such a notion on the part of the Plaintiffs was totally improper.

No. 23-30129 (Dec. 14, 2023, unpublished).

In an instructive review of a products-liability judgment based on expert testimony and a hotly disputed jury instruction, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in Kim v. American Honda Motor Co.:

Honda attempts to escape this jury verdict by arguing the district court erred in three ways: by admitting Plaintiffs’ experts, denying its JMOL motion, and denying its proposed instruction about the nonliability presumption. But it is incorrect on all fronts. The Plaintiffs’ experts based their opinions on reliable methodologies and provided relevant, helpful testimony. As such, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Honda liable for the Kims’ injuries. The district court’s application of the Texas statutory presumption of nonliability was also faithful to the statutory text, the precedent of Texas, and the precedent of this Court.

No. 22-40790 (Nov. 7, 2023).

Antero Resoiures Corp. v. C&R Downhole Drilling Inc., an appeal about an $11 million judgment for alleged overbilling in energy production, rejected a second challenge to the plaintiff’s damages calculation in addition to the one discussed yesterday.

Specifically, the appellant argued that the expert’s testimony “was deficient because it did not consider what rates competing drillout providers might have paid. Even if the Robertson companies took longer, so the argument goes, if they charged significantly less than other companies, Antero might have ended up paying less than if it had hired someone else.”

The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument for two related resons:

1. Legal materiality. “[E]vidence of a competitor’s rate is not necessary to prove out-of pocket damages. To show damages, Antero need only prove that the Robertson companies charged it more than the ‘value [Antero] received.’ By billing Antero more than the services it rendered, Kawcak caused Antero to incur out-ofpocket expenses. That is, Antero paid $150,000,000 in exchange for a certain number of days of work. But because the Robertson companies did not actually work on all of the days they billed, the value of the work Antero received was only $138,877,860. The difference in value is the amount overbilled. No reference to competitors’ rates is needed for that statement to be true.”
2. Factual materialty. “[T]he jury was not required to accept Kawcak’s testimony regarding Fortis Energy’s rates. As Antero points out, there are multiple reasons why the jury might not have credited Kawcak’s assertion that Fortis Energy was the only other available drillout provider, and that it would have charged more than the Robertson companies. Kawcak gave the rates strictly from memory, and his credibility was already in question because of his inconsistent answers to previous questions.”

No. 22-10918 (Oct. 31, 2023) (citations omitted).

Antero Resoiures Corp. v. C&R Downhole Drilling Inc. presented a dispue about the calculation of damages in a case about alleged overbilling in energy production. The Fifth Circuit affirmed against a challenge that the plainitff’s expert was not sufficiently precise, holding:

[T]the amount of damages need only be proven “with a reasonable degree of certainty.”  Taylor’s testimony calculated Antero’s out-of-pocket damages to a reasonable degree of certainty, especially when viewing the evidence in favor of the verdict. Taylor followed sound analytical methods to determine how long the Robertson companies should have taken to complete the drillout services. He reviewed the hundreds of completion reports and tens of thousands of invoices, accounting for uncontrollable delays and site-specific conditions. Taylor then compared the time spent to the time taken by previous drillout providers and concluded that the Robertson companies took some percentage longer than those companies. Applied to the rates charged by the Robertson companies, Taylor calculated damages in the amount of $11,122,140. That is a perfectly rational way of approximating overbilling.

No. 22-10918 (Oct. 31, 2023) (citation omitted).

Majestic Oil v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s is an insurance coverage case in which the key issue is what caused a roof to leak. The plaintiff’s expert prepared a second report that added analysis of certain weather data; he characterized it as a permissible supplement to his original report, while the defense moved to strike it as containing an impermissible new opinion after the expert-report deadline.

The Fifth Circuit reversed the trial court’s ruling that struck the new report, remanding for more fulsome consideration of all four factors identified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1): “(1) the explanation for the failure to identify the [information]; (2) the importance of the [information]; (3) potential prejudice in allowings the timeliness of an expert report and the [information]; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such
prejudice.” No. 21-20542 (March 17, 2023, unpublished).

In a change from the constitutional issues that have plagued the SEC in court of late, in SEC v. World Tree Financial, LLC, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a securities-fraud judgment based on “a fraudulent ‘cherry-picking’ scheme, in which [defendants] allocated favorable trades to themselves and favored clients and unfavorable trades to disfavored clients.” Proof of this scheme required sophisticated statistical analysis, summarized as follows:

To analyze World Tree’s allocation data, [the SEC’s expert] divided the client accounts into three categories: (1) accounts controlled by Perkins, Gilmore, or both (“Favored-Perkins accounts”); (2) accounts owned by World Tree clients other than Matthew LeBlanc and his business Delcambre Cellular (“Favored-Client accounts”); and (3) accounts owned by LeBlanc and Delcambre (“Disfavored accounts”). She then measured several performance measures and subsets of trades: most and least profitable trades, day trades, average first-day returns, earnings-day trades, overlapping stocks, and trades after LeBlanc complained to Perkins about his accounts’ poor performance. According to her analysis, from July 2012 to July 2015, Perkins methodically allocated trades with favorable first-day returns to the FavoredPerkins and Favored-Client accounts, while allocating trades with unfavorable first-day returns to the Disfavored accounts.

[She] opined that the “evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Perkins engaged in cherry-picking.” Though she acknowledged at trial that the data reflected only a pattern and that she did not “have the ability to identify individual trades that may or may not be improper,” the data in the aggregate showed a “one in one million chance that these patterns could have occurred if allocations were being made without regard to first-day return.”

No. 21-30063 (Aug. 4, 2022).

While Johnny Cash famously walked the line, the defendants in Earnest v. Sanofi U.S. Servcs., Inc., did not successfully walk the line between Rule 701 and 702, with respect to a senior company employee in a products-liability case: “While parts of Dr. Kopreski’s testimony fall within the parameters of Rule 701, he also strayed beyond ‘facts, . . . subjective beliefs[,] and opinions,’ within either his personal knowledge or his capacity as Sanofi’s corporate designee. He testified regarding highly specialized and technical information related to Taxotere, the TAX316 study, and drug studies in general.” No. 20-30184 (Feb. 10, 2022) (citation omitted).

Billy Joel disputed causation about starting the fire. So did the parties in Coastal Bridge Co. v. Heatec, in which the Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment, holding: “Here, genuine disputes of material fact exist as to: (1) the significance of the heating pumps; (2) what equipment was disassembled and disposed of; (3) the origin of the subject fire and whether the inlet pipe moved; and (4) the extent of communication4 that occurred between the parties before the formal notice of the fire. These factual disputes cannot be resolved without weighing the evidence and making credibility determinations, which are matters for the factfinder.” No. 19-31030 (Nov. 6, 2020, revised).

Each of the four factors for a deadline extension was in play in AIG Europe, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., No. 19-40934, where the Fifth Circuit observed:

1. Explanation. “If AIG needed information from Caterpillar’s experts to allow Faherty to complete his expert report, AIG should have moved to compel the depositions of those experts.”
2. Importance. “AIG’s claims do not turn on Faherty’s report. Despite the exclusion, AIG had experts on causation.”
3. Prejudice. “Faherty’s report responded to the analysis of Caterpillar’s experts, it also contained new analyses and conclusions. Defendants were not given the opportunity to challenge these conclusions on the critical issue of causation.”
4. Continuance? “Yet another continuance would have delayed summary judgment and a potential trial even further.”

In Jacked Up LLC v. Sara Lee Corp., the plaintiff’s expert “seems to have assumed
that the projections in the Sara Lee Pro Forma were correct and then extrapolated lost-profits figures.” But the record also contained a detailed explanation by the defendant’s marketing director about why “the assumptions in the pro formas are merely
elaborate guesswork by the business and sales teams” until there are actual product sales. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of the expert under a basic Daubert principle: “Expert evidence that is not ‘reliable at each and every step’ is not admissible.” No. 19-10391 (April 3, 2020) (unpublished). (citation omitted). (LPHS represented the successful appellee in this case.)

The Fifth Circuit reversed a defense summary judgment in a products case in Certain Underwiters at Lloyd’s v. Axon Pressure Prods., Inc., noting:

• Procedurally, a lack of explanation as to key Daubert rulings and related elements of the plaintiff’s claim, characterizing them as “pithy to the point of being incomplete.”
• Substantively, a fact issue on causation, given conflicting testimony on (a) the handling of the relevant piece of equipment, (b) the reasons for material continuing to flow through that equipment at the time of the accident.

No. 18-20453 (Feb. 21, 2020).

Wallace alleged that he had been retaliated against in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; the dispute about the objective reasonableness of his beliefs about the disclosure of sales tax payments in turn led to an accounting dispute, which Wallace lost after his expert was found to not have been properly disclosed. Wallace argued that the pertinent testimony was lay rather than expert, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed:

Rule [the expert]’s training, education, and experience included “‘refinery economics, strategy management for commercial crude oil, business development,’ and . . . ‘transfer pric[ing] between operating segments.’” Notably, Rule did not deal explicitly with tax calculations, SEC reporting requirements, or investor relations. We conclude that Rule’s declaration as to paragraph 22 could not have been based on his lay experience as a Tesoro employee but rather on specialized accounting knowledge. Rule’s opinion on the application of tax accounting definitions to the SEC disclosures is an example of Rule applying his “specialized knowledge” to “help the trier of fact . . . understand the evidence.

Wallace v. Andeavor Corp., No. 17-50927 (Feb. 15, 2019).

The Pugas received a substantial judgment in their favor after a jury trial, arising from a collision with a truck controlled by RXC Solutions. The Fifth Circuit substantially affirmed, holding, inter alia:

• Preservation. The defendant’s FRCP 50(b) motion, based on the argument that federal law does not allow courts to hold motor carriers liable for the acts of independent contractors, was not permissible when its 50(a) motion only attacked the sufficiency of the evidence about the driver’s employee status and alleged negligence;
• Jury charge. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it “closely examined the statute, avoided the obvious, overbroad definition of motor carrier, and picked out the correct, limited definition.”
• Expert testimony. The defendant’s objections to the testimony of an accident investigator went to weight rather than admissibility, even though “[i]t did not take into account every possible explanation for the accident, and some measurements were missing.”
• Remittitur. “We measure disproportionality by applying a percentage enhancement to past similar awards. This enhancement is 50% for jury trials.”

Puga v. RCX Solutions, Inc., No. 17-41282 (Feb. 1, 2019).

A freak accident involving a compound bow killed Dr. Alan Sandifer, which led to litigation, which led to the plaintiff’s expert testifying as follows:

Dr. Kelkar conceded that from a biomechanical perspective, it was just as likely that Dr. Sandifer was killed by volitionally placing his head inside the bow as it was by an accidental twisting of the bowstring. But he added that he believed the second scenario was more likely because of statements from Dr. Sandifer’s friends and family describing him as a careful bow hunter and the difficulty of volitionally placing one’s head into a drawn bowstring. When pressed, Dr. Kelkar conceded that, without the statements about Dr. Sandifer’s careful nature as a hunter, he could not say his theory was more likely than the expert opinion offered by Hoyt.

This reliance on “propensity” evidence led to affirmance of the expert’s exclusion under Daubert: “Apart from exceeding the scope of his qualification as a biomechanical expert, the propensity evidence Dr. Kelkar based his opinion upon is not a reliable basis to draw a conclusion regarding Dr. Sandifer’s use of the bow at the time of the accident. The propensity evidence was offered by witnesses who testified that Dr. Sandifer was safety-conscious in using and handling the bow as a hunter and when hunting. Dr. Sandifer was not hunting when the accident occurred; he was in his home office and he was engaged in modifying his bow.” Sandifer v. Hoyt Archery Inc., No. 17-30124 (Oct. 24, 2018).

“The district court also abused its discretion in excluding Sharma’s testimony regarding his trend analyses. The district court found this testimony misleading because Sharma only plotted some of the data points from the testing of the pond, which indicated a steady decline moving away from Fairway View, but some of the omitted data points were inconsistent with this trend. We find that this critique of Sharma’s method does not justify excluding the trend analysis testimony entirely. Rather, this question as to the basis for Sharma’s opinion is fodder for cross-examination, “affect[s] the weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility[,] and should be left for the jury’s consideration.'” Cedar Lodge Plantation v. CSHV Fairway View I, LLC, No.. 17-30742 (Oct. 10, 2018, unpublished) (emphasis added).

The Fifth Circuit made a second discovery-related observation in September, in Norman v. Grove Cranes, a products-liability dispute about a safer alternative design for a crane. The trial judge did not allow the plaintiff’s expert to testify on that point; on appeal, the Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion. Plaintiff said the expert “Perkin was unable to form an opinion regarding safer alternative design because Grove failed to produce the documents requested, i.e., the ‘draft design drawings related to the prior design of the crane at issue and similar Grove cranes.’.” The district court disagreed, “pointing out that Norman knew at least 83 days prior to the close of discovery that Perkin needed additional documents to form his expert opinion on safer alternative design but failed to file a motion to compel until a month after the close of discovery,” and noting that the plaintiff’s “failure to seek Court intervention via a motion to compel before the end of discovery shows a lack of diligence in seeking documents [he] now claims are indispensable to his expert’s ability to render a required opinion.” No. 17-20631 (Sept. 10, 2018, unpublished).

An expert’s analysis of an electrical fire on a boat involved a “‘hose test,’ in which he directed water from a garden hose onto the boat’s wet bar and tracked where the water ended up.” Unfortunately for him, because this work was “meant to be a simulation or re-creation of what actually happened, it must be performed under ‘substantially similar conditions'” to the fire, and it was not: “Plaisance’s videos did not contain important information about how he conducted the experiment, such as ‘how long the hose ha[d] been running’ or ‘the pressure of the water coming out of the hose.’ Moreover, the video showed ‘a continuous stream of water from a garden hose directly at the junction between the back of the wet bar and the boat’s wall,’ and there was no indication that Gonzalez ever used a hose in that fashion. In fact, as the district court noted, Plaisance did not provide any information about how Gonzalez typically washed the boat.” Similar problems also undermined another expert’s testimony about electrical issues on the boat. Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co. v. Porter, Inc., No. 16-31259 (Aug. 6, 2018).

John Williams was seriously injured in a crane accident; a jury found that the crane manufacturer “failed to warn Model 16000 Series crane operators that, if the crane tips over, large weights stacked on the rear of the crane can slide forward and strike the operator’s cab.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed that multi-million dollar verdict, finding that the jury acted within its authority as to (1) liability for failure to warn, (2) proximate cause and alleged misuse by Williams, (3) proximate cause and an alleged alternative warning (left), (4) a Daubert challenge to the plaintiff’s expert on warnings (applying Roman v. Western Manufacturing, 691 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2012), and Huss v. Gayden, 571 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2009) – two powerful statements by the Court about admissible expert analysis), and (5) admissibility rulings about other accidents and the plaintiff’s prior conduct. The opinion provides a powerful illustration of a well-conducted trial by jury. Williamv v. Manitowoc Cranes LLC, No. 17-60458 (Aug. 3, 2018).

The insured’s commercial property insurance policy provided coverage from June 2, 2012 to June 2, 2013. “The summary judgment evidence reveals that several hail storms struck the vicinity of the hotel in the several years preceding [the insured’s] claim. Only one of these storms fell within the coverage period.” The Fifth Circuit found that the insured failed to establish coverage, even with an expert’s opinion that said a date within the period was “most likely,” when that opinion was later disclaimed and “conflicts with the data it purports to rely on.” Certain Underwriters v. Lowen Valley View LLC, No. 17-10914 (June 6, 2018).

Among other holdings in In re DePuy Orthopaedics, the Fifth Circuit observed: “Suppose we did believe [counsel]’s various and independent explanations for why he could pay his expert before and after trial without ever compromising the witness’s non-retained status. An opinion countenancing his behavior would read like a blueprint on how to evade Rule 26 with impunity. Parties could pay experts ‘for their time’ before trial and later exchange compelling ‘pro bono’ testimony for sizable, post-trial ‘thank you’ checks.” No. 16-11051 et seq. (April 25, 2018) (emphasis in original).

Cox v. Provident Life involved a dispute about the cause of the plaintiff’s knee problems: “Under the policies, Cox is entitled to receive disability benefits for life if, and only if, his disability resulted from injury rather sickness.” The record showed that:

Shelton, the treating physician, gave deposition testimony that, ‘to a reasonable degree of medical probability,’ ‘the trauma to [Cox’s] left knee when he fell in the hole on December 26, 2010, caused or contributed to the cause of his disability.’ In the same deposition, Shelton reaffirmed that ‘[e]ven though [Cox] may have had some pre-existing arthritis or chondromalacia,’ the injury ‘contributed to and caused part of [Cox’s] disability.’ The district court never grappled with these unequivocal
statements, instead embracing contrary evidence presented by Provident suggesting Cox’s injury did not accelerate his arthritis. That was error. This is a classic ‘battle of the experts,’ the winner of which must be decided by a jury.

No. 16-60831 (revised Jan. 2, 2018).

While arising in the specific context of a defective design claim under state law, Stewart v. Capital Safety USA addressed a broader question about when expert testimony is required to prove a point, as opposed to observations by knowledgeable lay witnesses. The Court held: “To find injury causation here, a jury would at least have to conclude that a different lifeline cable or a different warning would have, under the circumstances of this accident, prevented Stewart’s death. Thus, a jury would be confronted with questions that require a degree of familiarity with such subjects as physics, engineering, and oil rig practices and procedures. This case therefore raises questions that are of ‘sufficient complexity to be beyond the expertise of the average judge and juror’ and that ‘common sense’ does not ‘make[] obvious.'” No. 16-30993-CV (May 30, 2017; published Aug. 21, 2017).

The plaintiffs in Sims v. Kia Motors brought products liability claims about the design of a fuel tank. Their main engineering expert “employed a ‘differential diagnosis approach, a scientific technique that essentially involves the process of elimination.” While a potentially reliable technique, the Fifth Circuit noted that it “has cautioned that “the results of a differential diagnosis are far from reliable per se..’ . . . “[M]erely “ruling out” other possible explanations is not enough to establish reliability; experts must also have some scientific basis for ‘ruling in’ the phenomenon they allege.” Here, where “the record does not reflect any reliable facts or data ‘ruling in'” the expert’s theory about how the fuel tank behaved in the accident, “the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it.” No. 15-10636 (revised Oct. 11, 2016).

OTM, the owner of two boats, alleged a poor repair job by Diversified. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant and the Fifth Circuit reversed, observing: “OTM concedes it has not attempted to prove the ‘precise cause’ of the engines’ malfunction; instead, it maintains it presented sufficient evidence to create the requisite
genuine dispute of material fact for whether the claimed substandard overhauls by Diversified caused the engines’ breakdown. . . . [A]t this stage, OTM is not required to prove exactly which part failed, or disprove that ‘the vessels’ other deteriorating parts or operator error’ was not the cause of the vessels’ breakdown . . . . ” Operaciones Tecnicas Marinas, SAS v. Diversified Marine Services, LLC, No. 15-30932 (Aug. 5, 2016, unpublished). The opinion illustrates the interaction between the requirements of Rule 56 and the requirement of Daubert case law that an expert adequately exclude alternative causes.

In the trial of a dispute about the handling of another lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ lawyer in that other suit testified that he would not have settled for less than $3 million. On appeal, two expert reports were cited in opposition to that testimony, and the Fifth Circuit rejected them. It noted that the trial court was within its rights to credit the lawyer’s testimony, and that the reports had been prepared pretrial and thus could not have addressed that testimony. RSUI Indemnity Co. v. American States Ins. Co., No. 15-30976 (July 8, 2016, unpublished).

Carlson alleged injuries from the ProNeuroLight, an infrared therapy device. At trial, the defendants called a chiropractor with some experience using the device. The Fifth Circuit expressed skepticism about his qualifications, noting: “While he does make diagnoses and orders tests as part of his chiropractic and alternative medicine practice, [his] qualifications do not align with or support his challenged medical causation testimony.” The Court did not rule on that basis, however, instead finding that “a district court must . . . perform its gatekeeping function by performing some type of Daubert inquiry and by making findings about the witness’s qualifications to give expert testimony.”  Here, admitting the chiropractor’s testimony without taking those steps was an abuse of discretion. The Court found harm, noting that he was the sole defense witness, that his testimony was cited in closing, and that the defendants won. Accordingly, it reversed and remanded. Carlson v. Bioremedic Therapeutic Systems, Inc., No. 14-20691 (May 16, 2016).

The Fifth Circuit issued a revised opinon in Kovaly v. Wal-Mart Stores, No. 14-20697 (Sept. 22, 2015, unpublished).  The new opinion reaches the same result — reversal of the Daubert exclusion of an expert about the standard of care for a Texas pharmacist asked to issue a 72-hour emergency prescription.  It provides more detail about the expert’s analysis, eliminating some uncertainty in the original opinion about the role of Texas regulations in the expert’s work: “Brooke specifically analyzed how the various regulations overlap and how the history of the regulations led to the codification of particular exceptions but not others.  He explained that his opinion was based not only on the regulations but also on their history, accepted practice, and pharmacist training.”

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon accident, plaintiffs sought to bring two class actions against BP alleging violations of federal securities law — one regarding BP’s representations about its pre-spill safety procedures, and one about BP’s post-accident statements as to the flow rate of oil after the spill occurred. The district court certified the post-spill class, concluding that the plaintiffs had established a model of damages consistent with their liability case and capable of measurement across the class, and refused to certify the pre-spill class, finding that it had not satisfied the “common damages” burden established by the Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). The Fifth Circuit affirmed.  As to the post-spill class, the Court reviewed BP’s criticisms of the plaintiffs’ damages expert, and found that they were not so potent as to invalidate his theory at the class certification stage.  As to the pre-spill class, however, the Court agreed that the expert failed to exclude class members who would have bought the stock even with full knowledge of the alleged risks, making his analysis infirm for certification purposes.  Ludlow v. BP, PLC, No. 14-20420 (revised Sept.15, 2015).

Bartos, an injured seaman, sued for future lost wages.  His expert offered calculations based on a retirement age of 55.8 (from a table of work-life expectancies) or 67 (the Social Security full-retirement age).  The Fifth Circuit reversed a damages award based on the older age and rendered an award based on the younger one, reasoning: “Barto’s economist did not provide any reason to believe that Barto would continue to work past his statistical work-life expectancy. The only relevant evidence Barto presented at trial was his testimony that he plans to work ‘[a]s long as I can retire. Whatever the retirement age is.’ This scant evidence was not enough to show that Barto ‘by virtue of his health or occupation or other factors, is likely to live and work a longer, or shorter, period than the average.'”  Barto v. Shore Construction LLC, No. 14-31326 (revised Sept. 29, 2015).

The issue in Kovaly v. Wal-Mart was whether a pharmacist was negligent in not providing a 72-hour emergency supply of a patient’s medicine, despite some confusion about the quantity in the prescription issued by the patient’s physician.  No. 14-20697 (Aug. 12, 2015, unpublished).  The district court found that Brooke, the plaintiff’s expert, was well-qualified by experience and training to testify about the standard of care.  The district court went on to hold, however, that “nothing in the regulations definitively authorizes a pharmacist to provide a 72-hour emergency supply for an original prescription, and it concluded that doing so would actually violate Texas law,” and thus excluded his opinions as unreliable.  The Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding: “Even if Brooke’s opinion that the pharmacist legally could have filled the emergency supply is an incorrect interpretation of Texas law, that does not render it unreliable in light of his qualifications, experience, and foundation for the opinion.”  In support, the Court cites several cases about the ultimate “correctness” of an expert’s factual conclusion.

Plaintiffs sued Whirlpool, alleging that a gas range it manufactured made them sick from carbon monoxide emissions.  They offered two causation experts, whose testimony was stricken by the district court under Daubert, which the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  The first opined about the “general causation” link connection between carbon monoxide and health problems, but the main studies he relied on involved significantly higher concentrations than what was measured in Plainitffs’ apartment.  The second, an “accomplished engineer with significant expertise in vehicular accident reconstruction and fire and explosion analysis,” did not have expertise on the issue in this case: “No gas appliance fire is at issue in this case; rather, the core claim here is that the gas range was defective because it emitted carbon monoxide in excess of an amount that is safe.”  Macy v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 14-20603 (June 4, 2015, unpublished).

Plaintiff alleged birth defects from the prescription of metoclopramide, off-label, to control nausea during pregnancy. The prescribing doctor gave “unequivocal” deposition testimony that he chose the medicine because of his clinical experience, and had no contact with marketing efforts by the drug manufacturer.  Accordingly, preempted or not, plaintiff’s claims failed for lack of causation. Whitener v. Pliva, Inc., No. 14-30468 (April 9, 2015, unpublished).

The issue in Lowman v. Jerry Whitaker Timber Contractors, LLC was whether certain timber companies had vicarious liability for allegedly unlawful logging activities, in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, in violation of that state’s timber cutting statute. Evidence showed that the loggers sold timber to the mills and in return received a “scale ticket” — a sort of commercial paper that can be bought and sold and allows small loggers immediate access to sale proceeds — which featured a description of the wood. Plaintiffs offered an affidavit from a state investigator who described the defendants’ “prior schemes involving the theft of timber and the falsifying of scale tickets,” and opined that he saw “‘the same pattern’ of activity” here. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the evidence showed no connection between the tickets he reviewed and the timber at issue, much less any “right of control or supervision” by the defendants over the loggers.  No. 14-30787 (Feb. 10, 2015, unpublished).

The trustee of a litigation trust formed from the bankruptcy of Idearc, Inc. sued its former parent, Verizon, alleging billions of dollars in damages in connection with its spinoff.  After a bench trial and several other orders, the district court ruled in favor of defendants, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Verizon Communications, No. 13-10752 (revised Sept. 2, 2014).

The opinion, while lengthy, still only hints at the complexity of the case, and much of its analysis is fact-specific.  Some of the issues addressed include:

1.  A bankruptcy litigation trust does not have a right to jury trial on a fraudulent transfer claim, when the defendant creditor has filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy court must resolve whether a fraudulent transfer occurred to rule on that claim (analyzing and applying Langemkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990), in light of Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011)).

2.  In the context of determining whether the district court reviewed an earlier ruling correctly, on pages 26-27, the Court provided crisp definitions of the basic concepts of dictum and holding.

3.  In the course of rejecting an argument about the refusal to admit several pieces of evidence, the Court noted that the trustee “does not discuss how each specific piece of evidence was likely to affect the outcome of the trial, in light of all the evidence presented.”

4.  A defense expert, without experience in the particular industry, was still qualified to speak to valuation methodology in the bench trial, and “we cannot reverse the district court for adopting one permissible view over the other.”

5.  The Court thoroughly reviewed the fiduciary duties owed from a parent to a subsidiary under Delaware law, while affirming the district court’s conclusions about causation associated with their alleged breach.

Aransas Project v. Shaw presented a challenge to an injunction against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, prohibiting the TCEQ from issuing new permits to withdraw water from rivers that feed the estuary where whooping cranes live.  No. 13-40317 (June 30, 2014).  The whooping crane, described in the opinion as a “majestic bird that stands five feet tall,” is an endangered species, and the only known wild flock lives in Texas during winter.

The Fifth Circuit first rejected an argument for Burford abstention, finding that this case presented a “broader grant of administrative and judicial authority by state law to remedy environmental grievances” than a prior opinion where it allowed abstention in a similar sort of environmental dispute.  Cf. Sierra Club v. City of San Antonio, 112 F.3d 789 (5th Cir. 1997).

The Court then reversed the injunction, finding no causation “in the face of multiple, natural, independent, unpredictable and interrelated forces affecting the cranes’ estuary environment.”  While couched in language about proximate causation and environmental law, the Court’s analysis is a classic illustration of the recurring Daubert problem of excluding alternate causes.  (In the course of this discussion, the butterfly effect theory makes a cameo appearance in footnote 10.)

At issue in Meadaa v. K.A.P. Enterprises LLC was the relative liability of three defendants for a $3.5 million claim.  No. 12-30918 (July 1, 2014).  In a summary judgment affidavit, an expert opined that transactions of Defendant 1 had not resulted in unfair advantage to Defendants 2 and 3, and had kept its affairs separate from those of Defendant 4.  The expert had reviewed financial documents from Defendant 1 and tax returns from Defendant 4.  The Fifth Circuit found no clear error in the district court’s striking of this affidavit for a lack of personal knowledge.  Because “[i]t is by no means clear how a [CPA] can obtain personal knowledge of the effects of the actions of one entity on other parties without reviewing the latter’s financial documents,” it was “incumbent upon him to explain how he acquired such knowledge.”  As a procedural matter, the Court also found that a notice of appeal from a final judgment encompassed a later ruling on a Rule 59 motion.

Ayala was killed by a propane heater explosion; his estate sued the manufacturer for damages.  Ayala v. Enerco Group, 13-30532 (May 28, 2014, unpublished).  Ayala’s wife testified that he was generally careful with the heater, although she did not observe him at the time of the accident.  An expert identified several possible defects with the heater, but: “[There was no evidence to suggest the Ayalas’ heater itself was defective. He did not perform a structural analysis of the Mr. Heater or destructive testing of an example unit. His conclusions supporting that there could be a leak were based solely on the nature of the item itself. McPhate also admitted that he could not rule out other potential sources of a propane leak other than a defect in the heater, such as a faulty propane bottle or a failure by Mr. Ayala to secure the valve properly on the heater.”  Accordingly, the estate’s claims failed.  A sanctions award against the plaintiff’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for filing a second lawsuit was reversed because that filing did not show a “persistent” pattern of vexatious litigation as required by that statute.

The plaintiff in Diggs v. Citigroup, Inc. sought to resist arbitration of an employment dispute, relying upon a study by Cornell professor Alex Colvin that concluded: “there is a large gap in outcomes between the employment arbitration and litigation forums, with employees obtaining significantly less favorable outcomes in arbitration.”  No. 13-10138 (Jan. 8, 2014, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to exclude the study under Daubert, noting that the study was not connected to this dispute and examined data from 5 years before its initiation.  The Court also questioned — without resolving — the validity of comparing arbitration statistics from 2003-07 with litigation statistics from the late 1990s.

A barge moored at a facility operated by Lafarge came loose during Hurricane Katrina and caused extensive damage.  The district court granted summary judgment to Lafarge, finding that the plaintiff’s damage theory was not scientifically credible in light of the observed weather conditions at the time.  St. Bernard Parish v. Lafarge North America, Inc., No. 13-30030 (Dec. 19, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit agreed that “[t]here is a great deal of testimony supporting Lafarge’s position, to be sure, and little to support the Parish’s, but we are mindful of the summary judgment standard.”  It reversed, however, noting eyewitness testimony that was not consistent with the defendant’s expert analysis. The Court distinguished and limited Ralston Purina v. Hobson, 554 F.2d 725 (5th Cir. 1977), which involved an unusual theory about the behavior of starving chickens, on the ground that its plaintiff could not prove the facts that his theory required.

“The Daubert reliability analysis applies to, among other things, ‘the facts underlying the expert’s opinion.'”  Moore v. International Paint LLC, No. 13-30281 (Nov. 15, 2013, unpublished).  In this case, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of expert testimony about a plaintiff’s cumulative benzene exposure, citing these problems with his assumed facts: (1) assuming an hourly rate of $6,00, when his rates were in fact $6.99, $7.44, and $8.00; (2) assuming, contrary to the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, that he always worked with paint indoors, that his respirator always failed within an hour, and he never received a replacement; (3) assuming, contrary to other deposition testimony, that the indoor spaces where the plaintiff worked were always unventilated; and (4) assigning an arbitrary number, with no record support, to the amount of time the plaintiff worked as a sandblaster rather than a painter.  “To be sure, reliable expert testimony often involves estimation and reasonable inferences from a sometimes incomplete record. . . . Here, however, the universe of facts assumed by the expert differs frequently and substantially from the undisputed record evidence.”

An unsecured creditor contended that the gross negligence of a bankruptcy trustee allowed a key asset to escape the estate.  The court agreed and ordered payment from Liberty Mutual’s bond for the trustee.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding: (1) the relevant limitations period was set by a 4-year federal statute rather than a 2-year state one, (2) the finding of gross negligence was not clearly erroneous, and (3) expert testimony was not necessary to establish gross negligence in this situation: “While the precise course of action the Trustee should have taken may be subject to reasonable debate, it requires no technical or expert knowledge to recognize that she affirmatively should have undertaken some form of action to acquire for the bankruptcy estate the assets to which it was entitled.”   Liberty Mutual v. United States, No. 12-10677 (revised August 20, 2013).

In Homoki v. Conversion Services, a check processing company sued its sales agent and a competitor.  No. 11-20371 (May 28, 2013).  It won judgment for $700,000 against the competitor for tortious interference with the sales agent’s contract with the company, and $2.15 million against the agent for past and future lost profits.  The company and competitor appealed.  First, the Fifth Circuit — assuming without deciding that the plaintiff had to show the competitor’s awareness of an exclusivity provision in the agent’s contract — found sufficient evidence of such knowledge in testimony and the parties’ course of dealing, and affirmed liability for tortious interference.  Second, the Court found that the plaintiff’s “experience in managing his business for sixteen years” supported his damages testimony, and that “[w]hile [plaintiff]’s presentation of its damages evidence was far from ideal,” also found sufficient evidence of causation on the interference claim.  Finally, the Court found that the plaintiff had given adequate notice of its claim of conspiracy to breach fiduciary duties (the joint pretrial order was not signed by the judge), but the plaintiff waived jury trial on that issue by not requesting a damages question — particularly given the significant dispute about causation in the evidence presented.

In Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, LLP, LLP the district court entered judgment for the plaintiff — $26.2 million in compensatory damages and $18.2 million in punitives, after a remittitur —  in a trade secrets case about software to make oil exploration more efficient.  No. 11-20816 (May 15, 2013, revised Jan. 15, 2014).  Affirming, the Court: (1) reminded, in the opening paragraph, of the deference due to a jury verdict; (2) detailed the sufficient evidence before the jury of a trade secret, of its inappropriate use by the defendant, of damages, and malice; (3) rejected Daubert arguments about the scope of the plaintiff’s computer science expert’s testimony  and the material considered by its damages expert; and (4) affirmed the punitive damages award because it was less than the compensatory damages and the issue of “reprehensibility” was neutral.  The Court also analyzed aspects of the relationship between trade secret claims and the patent process.  Footnote 4 of the opinion provides a useful guide to the federal courts’ treatment of a “Casteel problem” in Texas jury submissions.

An expert opined that a railroad crossing was unsafe and required active warning devices.  Brown v. Illinois Central Railroad, No. 11-60654 (Jan. 28, 2013).  He contended that the crossing had “‘narrow’ pavement, ‘skewed’ angle, ‘rough’ surface and ‘steep’ incline” but did not tie those conclusions to a guideline or publications, relying instead on “education and experience.”  He also admitted that visibility at the crossing was adequate under the Transportation Department’s standards.  Id. at 7.  Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s exclusion of his testimony under Daubert, calling it “transparently subjective.”  Id. at 8.

The defendant in Factory Mutual Insurance v. Alon USA stipulated to liability after an explosion at a waste treatment plant.  The remaining issue was whether fair market value of the plant was the cost to replace it (roughly $6 million) or the cost of the plant’s component parts (roughly $900,000).  No. 11-11080 (Jan. 23, 2013).  Under deferential clear error and abuse-of-discretion standards of review, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusions that: (1) the plant system was unique and the cost of its components did not fairly estimate its value (distinguishing Hartford Ins. Co. v. Jiminez, 814 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no pet.)); (2) the plaintiff’s expert “educated and interviewed . . . employees” about a key depreciation issue, and thus “did more than just repeat information gleaned from external sources” (distinguishing U.S. v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008)); and (3) the multiplier used to reflect installation expenses was “entirely reasonable[,]” “[g]iven the lack of useful records and resources pertaining to this particular . . . plant.”

Smith v. Christus St. Michaels presented a wrongful death claim about an elderly man, who suffered from recurrent cancer, who died from a fall in the hospital while being treated for a blood disorder.  No. 12-40057 (Nov. 13, 2012) (unpublished).  The trial court granted summary judgment under the “lost chance” doctrine, finding a lack of evidence that the man would have been likely to survive his cancer.  The Fifth Circuit reversed because it found his death was caused by a fall unrelated to his cancer or other treatment protocol.  Id. at 8. The Court also reversed a ruling that the plaintiffs’ expert testimony on causation was conclusory, finding that it “sufficiently explained how and why” as to the allegedly inadequate monitoring of the patient’s bedside at night.  Id. at 10.  The opinion provides a general nuts-and-bolts summary of Texas tort causation law.

Roman v. Western Manufacturing examined a $1mm-plus verdict about severe injuries from a pump malfunction.  No. 10-31271 (Aug. 17, 2012).  After review of the standards, id. at 5 (“It is not our charge to decide which side has the more persuasive case.”), the Court found that two qualified mechanical engineers met Daubert even though they lacked extensive experience with “stucco pumps,” declining to “make expert certification decisions a battle of labels.”  Id. at 7.  The Court also rejected technical challenges to the type of pump reviewed by the experts and the plausibility of their factual assumptions about its operation, id. at 13 (“There was certainly contrary evidence, but that was for jurors to weigh.”), as well as sufficiency challenges about the inferences made by the jury.  Id. at 16-17.  Additional challenges were found waived under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50.  This opinion is the latest in a series of thoughtful cases about Daubert after the 2009 decision in Huss v. Gayden.

The Court reviewed several Daubert rulings in the toxic tort case of Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., No. 11-50193 (June 20, 2012).  Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, it affirmed the exclusion of experts based on weaknesses in reliance upon (1) analysis of whether the materials at issue belonged to a “class of chemicals” known to cause disease; (2) state and federal exposure guidelines; (3) animal studies; and (4) the “temporal connection” between exposure and illness.  Op. at at 8-20.  The Court then affirmed the exclusion of an opinion based on a “differential diagnosis,” concluding that it was based on an unreliable presumption about general causation.  Id. at 22.  The Court concluded by reversing on a causation issue that did not require expert testimony, finding that the temporal connection between exposure and certain chronic injuries was close enough to allow trial — while also finding that the connection was to attenuated as to related chronic injuries.  Id. at 26.  A dissent took issue with the majority’s reasoning as to one well-credentialed toxicology expert.  Id. at 29.