Charles Kaleb Vanlandingham, Administrator for the Estate of Charles Lamar Vanlandingham v. The City of Oklahoma City, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma considers motions to exclude and strike the opinions of defense expert Jim Morrissey in litigation arising from Charles Lamar Vanlandingham’s death. The court finds the supplemental expert report timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(2), and holds that some opinions lack a sufficiently explained basis while others satisfy the reliability requirement under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. The motion to exclude is granted in part and denied in part, and the motion to strike is denied as moot.

Holdings

1. The supplemental report was timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(2) because the deadline for deposition designations, which are among the Rule 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures, had not expired.
2. An expert's generalized assertion that an opinion is based on experience in emergency medical services, without explaining how that experience led to the conclusion, is insufficient to establish reliability under Rule 702 and Daubert.
3. References to identified paramedic textbooks and State of Oklahoma EMS Protocols were barely sufficient to establish a reliable basis for opinions applying those standards; references to those materials together with explained relevant experience were sufficient for opinions supported by the third stated basis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Morrissey's supplemental expert report was timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(2).
2. Whether Morrissey's opinions were sufficiently reliable and relevant for admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.
3. Whether Morrissey should be stricken as an expert witness.

Disposition

other