472 F.Supp.3d 470
N.D. Ind.2020Background
- Linda and Ken Smith purchased a 2018 Nexus Phantom RV and alleged it exceeded weight limits and lacked the warranted cargo carrying capacity.
- Nexus retained former employee Michael Potis as its Rule 26 expert to inspect and opine on the RV’s weight distribution and cargo capacity.
- Court-ordered private inspection required Potis to videotape his entire inspection; Potis’s phone ran out of memory and Nexus produced only ~16 short videos (<5 minutes of a 105-minute inspection).
- Potis produced a two‑page report: described inspection, driving check, and CAT-scale weights (front axle 6,680 lb; rear 11,700 lb; total 18,380 lb) and advanced a “cantilever” theory that rear loading would increase available front-axle capacity.
- The Smiths moved to exclude Potis’s testimony as unreliable under Daubert/Rule 702, focusing on the cantilever opinion; they also sought exclusion based on Nexus’s failure to comply with the videotape order.
- The court excluded Potis’s cantilever theory as unreliable and unhelpful, but allowed his other opinions based on certified scale weights (subject to limits tied to Nexus’s noncompliance with the videotape order and preservation of the weight ticket).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Potis’s "cantilever" opinion under Daubert/Rule 702 | Potis’s cantilever theory is speculative, lacks application of load-distribution formulas, testing, or validated methodology | Cantilever is a basic engineering concept and Potis’s industry experience suffices | Excluded: theory unreliable, unsupported by methods, data, or case‑specific application |
| Potis’s qualifications to offer weight/distribution opinions | Qualifications insufficient to support cantilever opinion without analysis or testing | Potis has extensive RV industry experience designing and modifying RVs since 1997 | Experience acknowledged, but does not rescue unsupported cantilever opinion |
| Admissibility of opinions based on certified CAT-scale weights | Scale-based weight findings are challenged only insofar as tied to cantilever theory | Scale weights are factual measurements and independent of the cantilever theory | Admitted: scale-weight opinions allowed if supported by preserved records (weight ticket) |
| Sanctions/exclusion for failure to videotape inspection as ordered | Entire testimony should be excluded for noncompliance with the court’s inspection videotape order | Noncompliance was inadvertent; full exclusion is excessive | Partial sanction: testimony admissible proportionally to produced videotape and preserved records; not fully stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeping standard for expert admissibility under Rule 702)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to technical and experience‑based expert testimony)
- General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (expert must show how data support conclusions; courts may exclude ipse dixit)
- Varlen Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 924 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2019) (proponent bears preponderance of evidence to establish admissibility)
- Liebhart v. SPX Corp., 917 F.3d 952 (7th Cir. 2019) (assessing reliability and helpfulness of expert technical testimony)
- Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. WH‑TV Broad. Corp., 395 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2005) (an expert who supplies only a bottom line without analysis supplies nothing of value)