The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:20-CV-26-MOC-WCM
DAVID BROWDER and LUCILLE BROWDER, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY )
COMPANY, )
)
Defendant. )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Exclude any Purported
Expert Testimony from Allan A. Abbata (Mr. Abbata) and Jonathan W. Burrell (Mr. Burrell)
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. (Doc. No.
37).
I. BACKGROUND
This diversity action is a dispute over the cause of damage to Plaintiffs’ vacation home
on a steep hill in Lake Lure, North Carolina. (Doc. No. 3 at 2; Doc. No. 36-15 at 4). Plaintiffs
discovered significant cracking in the walls, detached deck support posts, and cracks in the
home's foundation after Tropical Storm Alberto moved through the area on May 30, 2018. (Doc.
No. 1 at 4; Doc. No. 36-8; Doc. No. 36-9). Both parties agree a loss occurred. Plaintiffs had a
homeowner's insurance policy with Defendant at the time of the loss. Plaintiffs think the cause of
the damage was a wind event, and Defendant believes the damage was from erosion. (Doc. No. 3
at 2; Doc. No. 11 at 4). If the cause of the damage is erosion, then Plaintiffs cannot recover
insurance payouts from Defendant because their homeowner insurance policy does not cover
earth movement. (Doc. No. 36-2 at 11).
a. Mr. Abbata’s Inspection and Report
In July 2018, Plaintiffs contacted Mr. Abbata to inspect the house. (Doc. No. 36-15 at 3).
Mr. Abbata is a professional engineer who worked for The Warren Group, Inc. (Id. at 3). Mr.
Abbata inspected the house on July 20, 2018. (Id.). He inspected the home by taking
photographs, taking moisture readings of the foundation, measuring the cracks in the foundation
and walls, and making visual observations of the home. (Id. at 4). Mr. Abbata opined the damage
was from a one-time wind event that lifted the exterior decks of the home and pushed the house
up the hill. (Id. at 8). Visual evidence and photographs informed his opinion. (Id. at 4). Visual
evidence he relied on included cracks in the foundation and walls, crooked walls instead of
straight, and support beams attached to the deck that separated from the ground. (Doc. No. 47-8
at 97). Mr. Abbata does not think there is evidence of erosion or flooding because he took
moisture readings in the crawlspace under the home, which came back between 7 and 15 percent.
He alleges these are “normal” levels for a crawlspace. (Doc. No. 36-15 at 9).
Mr. Abbata did not research the weather conditions of Tropical Storm Alberto (Doc. No.
47-8 at 15), did not conduct soil exploration to see if the foundation was compromised (Id. at
57), and did not calculate the strength of wind needed to cause the damage to the home. (Id. at
105-06). He said that he did not need the soil information because he “knew in [his] mind what
caused the problem.” (Id. at 59). Mr. Abbata's opinion that a strong wind damaged the home
came from a news article that mentions a tropical storm, severe weather alerts sent to a
smartphone, an engineering report prepared by Mr. Burrell’s firm, and Mr. Abbata’s interview
with Plaintiffs. (Id. at 15). He did not use data about wind speeds or wind direction recorded
during the storm in his Report. (Id. at 21). The article that he cites as research does not mention
wind. (Id. at 136). He did not have information about the specifics of the “one-time event” that
he said caused the damage. (Id. at 131). Mr. Abbata also interviewed Plaintiffs about the “events
leading up to the date of loss and other information” related to “assessing the cause and extent of
damage” to the home. (Doc. No. 36-15 at 4-5). Yet, Plaintiffs were not at the house when the
storm occurred. (Doc. No. 47-8 at 58). Mr. Abbata also stated that he believed the winds were
forceful because he saw downed trees in the area. (Doc. No. 36-11 at 30-31).
b. Mr. Burrell’s Inspection and Report
Mr. Burrell inspected the house in July 2018. (Doc. No. 36-16 at 11). He provided a two-
page report that addressed his visual site observations. (Id.). He did not conclude what caused the
damage to the home but noted: “observations of the ground cover surrounding the residential
structure indicated no signs of erosion or water flowing towards the residential structure.” (Id.).
c. Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosure Deadline
Plaintiffs had to disclose expert reports in compliance with Rule 26(a)(2) by September
28, 2020. (Doc. No. 20 at 1). Discovery completion was due February 2, 2021, and the parties
scheduled the trial for around August 2, 2021. (Id.). Supplements for discovery per Rule 26(e)
are due 30 days after receiving applicable information. (Id. at 3). Defendant alleges Plaintiffs did
not produce expert reports that complied with Rule 26(a)(2) by the deadline. (Doc. No. 36-20 at
1).
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
a. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37
Rule 26 concerns necessary disclosures for expert testimony, while Rule 37 outlines the
sanctions for failing to comply.
Rule 26(a)(2) requires parties to disclose the identity of witnesses they may use at trial to
provide expert testimony, along with a complete statement of all opinions the witness will
express and the basis and reasons for them; the facts or data considered by the witness in forming
them; and any exhibits used to summarize or support them. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2). Parties must
also disclose “a witness's qualifications with a list of all publications authored in the previous ten
years; a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness testified as an
expert at trial or by deposition; and a record of compensation for the study and testimony in the
case.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Rule 26(e) compels parties who have made disclosures under
26(a) to supplement and correct their disclosures promptly if they learn they are incomplete or
incorrect. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(e). Rule 26(e) disclosures for this case are due 30 days after the
party receives the supplemental information. (Doc. No. 20 at 3).
Rule 37(c) provides that a party without “substantial justification” who does not disclose
information required under Rule 26 may not use any undisclosed witnesses or information. FED.
R. CIV. P. 37(c). There are two exceptions to the rule excluding evidence: when the failure to
disclose is “substantially justified,” and when the nondisclosure is “harmless.” Id. The party that
failed to disclose the information bears the burden of establishing the nondisclosure was
substantially justified or harmless. Bresler v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 855 F.3d 178, 190 (4th Cir.
2017). If the failure to disclose was not “substantially justified” or “harmless,” then the court
may impose sanctions. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(c).
In addition to or instead of entirely excluding the evidence, a court may instead impose
alternative sanctions on the breaching party. Alternative sanctions include payment of reasonable
expenses caused by the failure; informing the jury of the failure; preventing the disobedient party
from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses; striking pleadings in whole or in
part; staying proceedings until the order is obeyed; dismissing the action in whole or in part;
rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or treating the failure as contempt of
court. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(c).
The purpose of Rule 37 is to prevent surprise and prejudice to the opposing party.
Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 596 (4th Cir.
2003). The Court does not necessarily need to find bad faith or purposeful disregard of the
discovery rules to find a Rule 37 violation. Id. For purposes of a Rule 37(c) exclusion analysis,
the district court should consider the five following factors: “(1) the surprise to the party against
whom the evidence would be offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the surprise; (3) the
extent to which allowing the evidence would disrupt the trial; (4) the importance of the evidence;
and (5) the non-disclosing party's explanation for its failure to disclose the evidence.” Id. The
first four factors relate to the harmlessness exception, and the fifth factor relates to the substantial
justification exception. Id. But the district court is not required to tick through each of the
Southern State factors—it is recommended the court do so. Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d
214, 222 (4th Cir. 2014).
b. Federal Rule of Evidence 702
Rule 702 addresses testimony by expert witnesses. Witnesses qualified as an expert by
"knowledge, skill, experience, training or education" can give opinion testimony if the expert's
specialized knowledge will help the finder of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in
issue; the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; the testimony is the product of reliable
principles and methods; and the expert has reasonably applied the principles and methods to the
facts of the case. See FED. R. EVID. 702.
Requirements of Rule 702 apply to all expert testimony. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
526 U.S. 137, 138 (1999). Plaintiffs need to prove opinions are relevant and reliable. Id. Rule
702 places a gatekeeping function on the district court, which decides whether the testimony's
underlying “reasoning or methodology” is scientifically valid and “properly can be applied to the
facts at issue.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93 (1999). Some
considerations are whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested,
whether it has been peer-reviewed and published, whether there is a known or potential error
rate, whether standards exist controlling its operation, and whether it has attracted widespread
acceptance within a relevant scientific community. Id. at 593-95. These considerations are called
Daubert factors.
The judge has broad discretion to ascertain the reliability and relevancy of expert
testimony. But the judge should “be mindful that Rule 702 was intended to liberalize the
introduction of relevant expert evidence.” Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 261
(4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Cavallo v. Star Enter., 100 F.3d 1150, 1158–59 (4th Cir. 1996).
Evidence rules generally favor the admissibility of expert testimony: “the rejection of expert
testimony is the exception rather than the rule.” FED. R. EVID. 702 Advisory Committee Notes;
Heer v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 589 Fed. App'x 854, 861 (10th Cir. 2014). “Vigorous cross-
examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof
are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Westberry
at 596 (quoting Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 61 (1987)).
III. DISCUSSION
a. Failure to Properly Designate Expert Witnesses
Defendant asks this Court to exclude Mr. Abbata and Mr. Burrell's testimony from the
trial because Plaintiffs failed to properly designate them as experts in the case. Defendant did not
elaborate on what Plaintiffs did incorrectly and only said “Plaintiffs failed to do the required
steps to properly designate their experts.” (Doc. No. 38 at 20).
To have complied with expert disclosure rules, Plaintiffs needed to identify potential
expert witnesses and provide a complete statement of all opinions the witnesses would express
and the basis and reasons for them; the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;
any exhibits used to summarize or support them; the witness's qualifications, including a list of
all publications authored in the previous ten years; a list of all other cases in the past four years
where the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and a record of compensation
for the study and testimony in the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
i. Identity of witnesses
Under Rule 26(a)(2) and the Case Management Plan, Plaintiffs had to designate experts
and submit expert reports by September 28, 2020. (Doc. No. 20 at 1). On July 15, 2020,
Plaintiffs disclosed the identities of Mr. Abbata and Mr. Burrell as expert witnesses in the case.
(Doc. No. 23-1 at 2).
ii. Statement of the opinions the experts will make, the reasons for them, and
the facts considered by the witness in forming opinions
On September 28, 2020, Defendant’s attorney certified that she had received a copy of
the Expert Reports for Bunnell Lammons Engineering and the Warren Group, Inc. (Doc. No.
21). The Expert Report prepared by Mr. Burrell is dated August 2, 2018 (before the September
28 deadline for submission). (Doc. No. 36-16 at 11). The Expert Report prepared by Mr. Abbata
is dated August 8, 2018 (before the September 28 deadline for submission). (Doc. No. 36-15 at
1).
Both Reports offer the statements that the witnesses would express, the bases for these
opinions, and the facts or data used. (Doc. No. 36-15 at 1; Doc. No. 36-16 at 11). Mr. Abbata
discusses his theories about the cause of the damage to Plaintiffs’ house, and how he assessed the
damage using visual observation, moisture readings, depth measurements, and photographs.
(Doc. No. 36-15 at 3-4). Mr. Burrell states that he visually observed the property in his
assessment and believes the damage was not from erosion. He does not indicate what he thinks
the cause of the damage is. (Doc. No. 36-16 at 11). Both Reports contain photographs of the
home as evidence of the bases for their opinions. (Doc. No. 36-15 at 14-16; Doc. No. 36-16 at
13-18).
iii. Exhibits used to summarize the evidence
In the Expert Reports, there were photographs attached that showed the damage to the
home. (Doc. No. 36-15 at 14-16; Doc. No. 36-16 at 13-18). Plaintiffs could present these at trial
to show the bases of the expert opinions. Defendant also has the screenshots of the severe
weather alerts (Doc. No. 47-8 at 20) and the news article about Tropical Storm Alberto (Doc. No.
36-13) that Mr. Abbata used to formulate his opinions which Plaintiffs could use to summarize
the evidence.
iv. List of qualifications of the witness
Mr. Abbata's curriculum vitae (CV) showcases his qualifications as an expert through the
projects he has worked on and his engineering degree. It is unclear what date Defendant received
Mr. Abbata's CV because it is not dated. (Doc. No. 49-1). But the defense referenced Mr.
Abbata's CV when they took his deposition, so the Court will assume they received the CV
before February 24, 2021. (Doc. No. 47-8 at 3). The Court has not located a CV or list of
qualifications for Mr. Burrell in the documents.
v. Prior publications and prior testimony as an expert witness in a trial
Neither expert report includes “a list of all publications authored in the previous ten
years” or “a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness testified
as an expert at trial or by deposition.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26. The Rules do not say if the expert
witness disclosures must affirmatively state if the expert has never testified, participated in a
deposition, or published a paper.
Mr. Abbata indicates in his deposition that he has been a trial expert in the past. (Doc.
No. 47-8 at 35). This information is not in his CV. (Doc. No. 49-1). Defense counsel indicated
they had a record of Mr. Abbata’s prior sworn testimony in depositions and trials, but neither
party has provided the Court with this information. (Doc. No. 47-8 at 3). The Court will assume
that since Defendant referenced the list of prior testimony and depositions in their deposition of
Mr. Abbata, that they had the list since at least February 24, 2021. (Id.).
vi. Compensation
Neither Report includes compensation for the study and testimony Mr. Abbata and Mr.
Burrell received to inspect Plaintiffs’ home and prepare their Reports. FED. R. CIV. P. 26; (Doc.
Nos. 36-15; 36-16). However, Defendant references invoices that Mr. Abbata sent Plaintiffs for
inspecting their property and preparing the Report when they deposed Mr. Abbata. (Doc. No. 47-
8 at 36). The Court will assume Defendant has Mr. Abbata's record of compensation by
Plaintiffs.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ experts are missing the following: a record of Mr.
Burrell's compensation; a list of qualifications for Mr. Burrell; a list of previous cases that Mr.
Burrell may have given a deposition or testimony for; and publications that Mr. Burrell and Mr.
Abbata may have authored in the last ten years. Next, the Court will determine whether to
exclude expert testimony under Rule 37(c).
For purposes of a Rule 37(c) exclusion analysis, the Court considers the five following
factors: “(1) the surprise to the party against whom the evidence would be offered; (2) the ability
of that party to cure the surprise; (3) the extent to which allowing the evidence would disrupt the
trial; (4) the importance of the evidence; and (5) the non-disclosing party's explanation for its
failure to disclose the evidence.” Southern States Rack and Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams
Co., 318 F.3d 592, 596 (4th Cir. 2003). The Court is encouraged, but not required, to consider all
these factors. Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 222 (4th Cir. 2014).
The Court finds that the expert testimony that Mr. Burrell and Mr. Abbata are presenting
at trial is not surprising or disruptive to Defendant. It is therefore harmless and not actionable
under 37(c). Defendant has most of the information about Mr. Burrell and Mr. Abbata that
Plaintiffs were required to disclose under Rule 26(a). Defendant has been able to supplement any
information that may be missing through depositions of Mr. Abbata and interrogatories of
Plaintiffs. The evidence Mr. Burrell and Mr. Abbata are presenting is crucial towards
establishing Plaintiffs’ version of events. Plaintiffs do not explain their failure to disclose this
evidence. They state Defendant has had the opportunity to explore the expert opinions since
Plaintiffs submitted them in September. (Doc. No. 47 at 7). They also emphasize the harm that
will come to their case if the Court excludes the expert testimony. (Id.).
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs and does not exclude the expert testimony of Mr. Burrell
and Mr. Abbata for Rule 26 violations. However, Plaintiffs must submit a list of qualifications
for Mr. Burrell, a list of the previous cases Mr. Burrell may have given a deposition or testimony
for, compensation for Mr. Burrell and Mr. Abbata’s services, and publications that Mr. Burrell
and Mr. Abbata may have authored in the previous ten years. If Mr. Burrell and Mr. Abbata do
not have prior publications or undisclosed testimony, they should affirmatively state that for
clarity. These documents should be submitted within 14 days of the entrance of this Order.
b. Rule 702
Defendant contends the Court should exclude Mr. Abbata's Report and testimony because
it is unreliable, and his opinion is not based on reliable principles or methodologies. (Doc. No. 38
at 2). Defendant complains that Mr. Abbata did not collect weather data from the day of the
damage, did not perform calculations to discern the strength of the wind needed to cause the
damage, did not calculate the weight of the supporting deck posts or the deck itself, did not do
soil exploration, and failed to consider soil erosion. (Id. at 3). Rule 702 gives the district court
the responsibility to decide whether the testimony's underlying method is valid and properly
applied to the facts of the case. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93
(1999).
Expert witnesses must qualify as experts by their knowledge, skill, experience, or
training. FED. R. EVID. 702. Mr. Abbata’s prior experience and education qualify him as a
structural and civil engineering expert. He received a B.S. in Civil Engineering in 1971 from
Trine University. (Doc. No. 49-1 at 3). He had been working as an engineer since 1972 up until
January 2019, and he has five patents and five pending patents related to decks. (Id. at 15-16).
The expert’s technical knowledge must also be relevant to understanding the evidence or
determining a fact at issue. FED. R. EVID. 702. Since Mr. Abbata’s expertise is in structural and
civil engineering, his technical knowledge is relevant to understanding the cause of structural
damage to Plaintiffs’ house. Mr. Abbata has experience providing structural analysis for
buildings. (Doc. No. 49-1 at 3-5). Notably, he performed specialized consulting services related
to property loss from Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and 2013, where he “performed over 50 visual
inspections and technical investigations…on residential structures.” (Id. at 4). For the Warren
Group, Inc., he inspected concrete systems for structural defects and assessed damages resulting
from weather events like hurricanes, high winds, and flooding. (Id. at 3). All the information
about Mr. Abbata's experience is in his CV.
Experts must base their testimony on sufficient facts or data. FED. R. EVID. 702. Mr.
Abbata inspected the home and used what he learned from his inspection to form his Report. His
opinion is grounded in facts.
Expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and the expert applies
these principles and methods to the facts of the case. FED. R. EVID. 702. To determine whether
the testimony is reliable and relevant, the district court may consider whether the technique has
been tested, subjected to peer review and publication, attracted acceptance within the relevant
scientific community, how high the error rate is, and whether standards govern its operation.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93 (1999). The Court has not received
from Defendant or Plaintiffs an industry standard for professional engineers who evaluate
structural damage to homes. As such, the Court will evaluate Mr. Abbata’s methodologies in
comparison to those methods used by the other engineers who inspected Plaintiffs’ home.
Four engineers inspected Plaintiffs’ home: Dana Shave, Allan Abbata, Jonathan Burrell,
and Douglas Dunko. During his inspection, Mr. Shave made visual observations of the house, the
trees, and the surrounding grounds. He took photographs of the house as well. (Doc. No. 36-3 at
2). Mr. Shave gathered and reviewed weather data showing the rain and wind information for
Tropical Storm Alberto. (Id.). Mr. Dunko made visual observations, took measurements, and
took photographs of the home and the trees and ground surrounding the house when he did an
inspection. (Doc. No. 36-8 at 2). He also reviewed the reports of Mr. Burrell and Mr. Abbata and
the North Carolina Geological Survey from May 2019. He did not perform soil testing to form
his opinion because the physical evidence “was clearly provided.” (Id. at 4). Mr. Burrell made
visual observations of the house and the ground surrounding the house. (Doc. No. 36-16 at 11).
He took measurements of some of the cracks in the foundation and walls. (Id.).
When considering the methodologies of the other three engineers, with whom Defendant
does not raise an issue, Mr. Abbata's techniques appear similar. He took photographs of the
home, took moisture readings of the foundation, measured the cracks in the foundation and
walls, and made visual observations of the house. (Doc. No. 36-15 at 3-4). None of the engineers
performed soil testing. Mr. Abbata was the only one to take moisture readings of the crawlspace.
However, Mr. Shave and Mr. Dunko reviewed weather reports of Tropical Storm Alberto. (Doc.
No. 36-3 at 2; Doc. No. 36-8 at 3). Mr. Abbata did not read a weather report and instead read an
article about the storm and interviewed Mr. Browder about the events leading up to the loss and
other relevant information, including the storm. (Doc. No. 36-15 at 3-4). Because Mr. Abbata's
methods are very similar to those of the other engineers, his methods likely have acceptance
within a relevant scientific community. No evidence or argument asserts that performing soil
tests or mathematical calculations are an industry practice. Therefore, the expert evidence does
not violate industry standards.
Furthermore, it is important to note that imperfect expert testimony may still be admitted
into trial. Courts in other jurisdictions stress that the opposing party can expose weaknesses in
expert testimony during cross-examination. One case involved resolving a dispute between an
insurance company and a claimant who disagreed over whether wind damage or earth movement
caused the damage to Plaintiffs’ home:
“Although [Plaintiffs’ expert] may not rely on as holistic a picture as [Defendant] would
prefer, their facts and data are not rooted in “farce or fiction.” Inspections of the property
and an interview of its owner are reasonable factual bases for reports of this nature. Any
purported weaknesses in due diligence or research can be highlighted for the jury in
cross-examination.”
Melendez v. S. Fid. Ins. Co., No. CV 20-689, 2020 WL 6868850, at *3 (E.D. La. 2020) (quoting
Guillory v. Domtar Indus. Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1331 (5th Cir. 1996)). Melendez is like this case,
because the insurance company and the claimant disagreed on the cause of damage to the home
and the parties’ expert opinions reflected this disagreement. The court in Melendez states that the
“failure to rebut every other possible theory of causation does not automatically invalidate an
expert's report.” Id. (quoting Gaffney v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2009 WL 3188421, at **3-
4 (E.D. La. July 15, 2009)). The court in Melendez also reasoned that the defendant had the right
to cross-examine any expert witnesses for Plaintiffs at trial to expose any perceived flaws.
Defendant in this case will have the same opportunity. Furthermore, in Gaffney, the court
admitted an expert’s testimony even though he “failed to consider alternative causes, such as pre-
existing soil conditions, as the reason why a house was knocked off its foundation during a
hurricane.” Gaffney, 2009 WL 3188421 at **3-4.
The expert does not have to exhaustively consider every possibility for his opinion to be
rendered admissible for trial. An expert's opinion is not "rendered inadmissible" when he
disagrees with another's "opinions and testing methods." Refrigeration Supplies, Inc. v. Acadia
Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7397002 (E.D. Mo. 2020). Since Mr. Abbata’s methodologies are consistent
with that of the other engineers who inspected Plaintiffs’ home, the finder of fact should decide
which of the expert opinions to give more weight. Defendant may bring attention to perceived
flaws in Mr. Abbata's Report and testimony during cross-examination at trial.
Finally, Mr. Abbata also reasonably applied the principles and methods he used to the
facts of the case. Using the facts that he gathered, including the normal level of moisture in the
crawlspace, the lack of signs of soil erosion, the jagged cracking pattern on the interior walls and
ceiling, the crooked walls inside and outside the home, the separation of the wooden posts from
the foundation, the lack of standing water in the basement, the news article about Tropical Storm
Alberto, and the interview with Mr. Browder, he came to the reasonable conclusion that the
damage to Plaintiffs’ home was caused by wind rather than by erosion. (Doc. No. 36-15). As
stated above, expert testimony need not be perfect. It only needs to be reasonable. The finders of
fact will be able to decide for themselves whether they find Plaintiffs’ experts or Defendant’s
experts more reliable.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony,
Plaintiffs’ Complaint, all Documentary Evidence submitted by Defendant and Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude, the Expert Reports in question, and the
Case Management Plan. Based on this review, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to allow
Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses to testify at trial.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Testimony by
Expert Witnesses Mr. Abbata and Mr. Burrell (Doc. No. 37) is DENIED. Plaintiffs must submit
a list of qualifications for Mr. Burrell, a list of the previous cases Mr. Burrell may have given a
deposition or testimony for, compensation for Mr. Burrell and Mr. Abbata’s services, and
publications that Mr. Burrell and Mr. Abbata may have authored in the previous ten years. If Mr.
Burrell and Mr. Abbata do not have prior publications or undisclosed testimony, Plaintiffs should
affirmatively state that for clarity. These documents should be submitted WITHIN 14 DAYS of
the entrance of this Order.
Signed: June 18, 2021
i )
p-crvrnne<
Max O. Cogburn i yg
United States District Judge Hag Me of
15