Ford Prevails at Summary Judgment as Court Throws Out New Expert Opinions Introduced in Deposition Errata
Michelle I. Schaffer and Curtis A. Berglund obtained summary judgment in the matter of Nathan Godfried v. Ford Motor Company, in which Plaintiff alleged that Ford defectively designed a 1950s-era sickle bar mower because it did not have a secondary restraint to secure the mower blade during transport. The Court awarded summary judgment to Ford because there was no evidence that Ford’s original design was defective. In its ruling the Court rejected the deposition errata of Plaintiff’s expert, which sought to introduce new expert opinions. Specifically, the Court determined that the errata contradicted the expert’s prior deposition testimony, sought to add new facts and opinions beyond the expert’s testimony and report, and the errata failed to explain the reasons for the changes and additions to the expert’s testimony. Under these circumstances, the court ruled that the errata did not comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e) and refused to consider it.
The court’s decision is available here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-med-1_19-cv-00372/pdf/USCOURTS-med-1_19-cv-00372-2.pdf.