United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Newbern Magistrate Judge.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
A. TRAUGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the court is Plaintiff Will Neal, Jr.'s
Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of David
Huskey. (Docket No. 35.) For the reasons stated herein,
Plaintiff's Motion will be GRANTED.
a personal injury case centered on a car wreck involving
Plaintiff and Defendant in the early morning hours of January
3, 2015. The parties fundamentally disagree as to the cause
of the accident. In support of his version of the events,
Defendant disclosed David G. Huskey, a Senior Forensics
Engineer, as an expert witness and reserved the right to use
Mr. Huskey at the trial. (Docket No. 42, p. 2.) Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), Mr. Huskey
prepared a written report titled the Accident Reconstruction
Engineering Report (the “Report”) which contains
his opinion on a variety of issues but which focuses
primarily on the cause of the wreck (Docket No. 35-1).
Defense counsel provided Mr. Huskey with statements made by
the “involved drivers” [Plaintiff, Defendant, and
a witness], the police crash report, and photographs of the
involved vehicles. (Id. at p. 3.) The Report
contains four sections: Description of the Traffic Crash,
Summary of the Drivers' Statements, Analysis of the
Traffic Crash, and Summary of Conclusions. (Id.) The
Description of the Traffic Crash recapitulates the
information contained in the police report. (Id. at
pp. 3-4.) As the title indicates, the Summary of the
Drivers' Statements sets forth the Plaintiff and
Defendant's proffered versions of the incident.
(Id. at p. 5.) The heart of the Report is the
Analysis of the Traffic Crash, in which Mr. Huskey provides a
step-by-step breakdown of how he believes the accident
occurred, along with photographs of the parties' damaged
vehicles and two diagrams. (Id. at pp. 5-8.) Mr.
Huskey's reconstruction analysis essentially concurs with
Defendant's allegations. The Summary of Conclusions reads
The incident occurred on January 3, 2015 at 3:55 a.m. on
Interstate 65 near mile marker 75 in Nashville, Tennessee.
Impact occurred as Vehicle 2, the GMC Safari, was northbound
on Interstate 65 and crossed into the path of Vehicle 1, the
Acura MDX, which was also northbound on Interstate 65.
The initial impact occurred when the right front corner of
Vehicle 1 struck the left front side of Vehicle 2.
This impact is consistent with the police report, Driver 1
and the witness.
Impact and loss of control did not occur in the rear end
manner as suggested by Mr. Neal.
(Id. at p. 8.)
Mr. Huskey's Report was disclosed, he was provided with
supplemental materials, including Plaintiff's deposition,
the deposition of another witness to the accident, and
Defendant's interrogatory responses to certain questions
regarding Defendant's recollection of the facts. (Docket
No. 35, pp. 3-4.) The additional materials did not alter Mr.
Huskey's opinion. (Id.)
now moves to exclude Mr. Huskey's Report, arguing that it
fails to satisfy the standards of reliability and relevance
set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 as well as
Daubert and its progeny. (Docket No. 35.) Plaintiff
also asserts that the court should not permit an amendment of
the Report, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(c)(1). (Id. at pp. 13-14.) Defendant filed a
Response, contending that the Report is both reliable and
relevant and thus should not be excluded. (Docket No. 42.)