Plaintiff filed suit against defendant related to manufacturing and/or marketing defects of ceramic toilet tanks. plaintiff hired a Statistics Expert Witness to provide testimony. Defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court denied the motion to exclude.
Facts: This case (Cone et al v. Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – September 17th, 2019) involves a claim of alleged manufacturing and/or marketing defects of ceramic toilet tanks made by the the defendant. The plaintiff has hired Shawn Casper, Ph.D. (Statistics Expert Witness) to provide expert witness testimony. The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of this witness.
Discussion: The defendant would like Dr. Casper’s testimony to be excluded due to “inconsistencies and errors.” The plaintiff alleges that the arguments raised by the defendant goes to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility. In addition, the plaintiff argues that Dr. Casper’s opinions meet the Daubert standard for consideration of class certification and that none of the objections by the defendant warrants exclusion.
The court opines that Dr. Casper is qualified to offer testimony in the field of statistical and reliability methods and notes that Dr. Casper is a Master Black Belt in Six Sigma. In addition, the court opines that his skill, knowledge, experience, training, and education in these areas will help the trier of fact in this case. Also, the court notes that Dr. Casper’s methodology uses generally accepted methods and principles in the field of statistics, which includes the applying of Six Sigma metrics and statistics. Thus, the court opines that Dr. Casper’s testimony is admissible at this stage of the litigation.
Also, the court opines that the defendant’s challenges to Dr. Casper’s opinions go to the weight of his opinions and not their reliability. The court states that the defendant should resort to cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence as a means to attack evidence that it deems to be shaky.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Shawn Casper, Ph.D. is denied.