Raytheon Company (“Raytheon” or “Plaintiff”) is a large, international military and defense contractor holding several prime contracts with the United States Government. At their Fairdale location Raytheon maintains, stores, and services multiple mobile charging stations and storage locations for lithium-ion battery boxes (“LBBs”). The LBB’s were designed and manufactured by Saft but owned by the government pursuant to military contracts. Each LBB was stored within specially designed trailers commonly referred to as vaults.
Several of these prime contracts relate to the military’s ITAS/MITAS weapons system. The ITAS/MITAS weapon system is powered by large lithium-ion battery boxes (“LBBs”), several hundred of which were maintained, serviced, and stored at Raytheon’s facility in Louisville, Kentucky. The LBBs were stored in a series of containers known as LBB Vaults, which were supposedly explosion-proof.
On April 15, 2020, several of the LBBs inside LLB Vault #2 failed. Ahtna agreed to provide qualified sustainment services and other necessary support to Raytheon, which included management and oversight of Vault #2. No steps were taken by Raytheon to immediately remediate the hazard. The failed LBBs eventually ignited, leading to multiple fires on May 13 and May 14, 2020. The fires purportedly caused damage to Raytheon’s property. In this action, Raytheon seeks to hold the Ahtna Defendants and several of ASTS’ employees responsible for the damages allegedly stemming from this fire. The predicate for Raytheon’s claim is that the Ahtna Defendants breached the terms and conditions of an alleged contract between the parties pursuant to which the Ahtna Defendants were to supply field engineers and other support staffing to assist Raytheon in servicing the ITAS/MITAS weapons system.
Motion to Exclude
Doctor Tal Nagourney (“Dr. Nagourney”) is Ahtna’s expert witness in LBB design. In his opinion Nagourney discusses the LBB failures that occurred in April 2020, and how that incident relates to the fires in May 2020.
However, Saft argued that Nagourney’s testimony should be excluded as unreliable because it failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards adopted in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, (1993).
Electrical Engineering Expert Witness
Tal Nagourney is an electrical engineer specializing in fire investigation and failure analysis of consumer electronics, appliances, batteries, USB devices, and semiconductor devices. He conducts scientific investigations to guide critical decisions.
His expertise is built on a foundation of research and experimental design from his doctoral studies in micro-electro-mechanical systems. As a forensic electrical engineer, he leverages this experience to lead an effective investigation, identify the root cause, and present the findings clearly to any audience.
In the field, Nagourney thoroughly documents the scene and ensures critical evidence is collected. In the laboratory, he performs meticulous testing to identify issues with design, manufacturing, and usage. Moreover, his experience with failures lends itself to design review, and he helps his clients avoid product failures that elude typical safety standard testing.
Discussion by the Court
Reliability of Nagourney’s Testimony
i. Legal Conclusions and Admissibility of Opinion Evidence
In his report, Nagourney stated (1) that “[t]he fire in Vault 2 on May 13, 2020 would not have occurred if LBBs 528 and 941 had not experienced exothermic failures one month prior on April 15, 2020” and (2) that “the LBB that ignited the May 13, 2020 fire was one of 14 compromised by the initial exothermic failures of LBBs 528 and 941. Had it not been compromised, the fire would not have occurred.”
The Court held that Nagourney’s contested opinions do not qualify as legal conclusions. The opinions do not touch on an ultimate issue of this claim, which is whether the LBBs were defectively designed such that they were the primary cause of the May event. Instead, they merely reflect the expert’s belief that the April and May fires in the Vault #2 were connected, not that Saft was responsible for either fire. Basically, his opinion does not define any legal standard or apply the facts of this case to any legal standard. And Nagourney’s opinion lacks any specialized legal language at issue, but instead, uses more scientific phrasing and conclusions such as, “would not have occurred” or “compromised.”
ii. Rule 702 Reliability Analysis
Saft argues that under Fed. R. Evid. 702’s “nonexclusive checklist for trial courts to consult in evaluating the reliability of expert testimony,” Nagourney’s testimony was unreliable, speculative, and inadmissible. Saft specifically alleged that the opinions were, (1) not tested, (2) not subjected to peer review and publication, (3) has an unknown error rate and unknown community acceptance rate, and (4) are unhelpful to the trier of fact.
a. Lack of testing
To begin with, Nagourney is a cause of accident expert. He conducted engineering analysis and a fire and explosion investigation using techniques found in NFPA 921, “Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations.” Moreover, in making his own report Nagourney relied upon 84 different documents in some form. This included numerous incident and failure reports produced by Saft, Ahtna and Raytheon, videos and pictures of the April and May events, and reports and analysis about general hazards concerning LBBs. In fact, Nagourney was unable to perform independent testing of the LBB’s as they are government property and requests to conduct an examination were repeatedly denied by the other parties.
The Court held that since Nagourney was not only prevented from conducting independent testing of the LLBs but given the source and availability of data and information used by Nagourney in developing his opinion, independent testing is not needed.
b. Peer Review and Error Rate
Because Nagourney’s report is a cause of accident report which does not generally require independent testing, arguments regarding the lack of peer review or known error rates are irrelevant in determining whether the opinion meets the reliability requirement for purposes of admissibility.
Moreover, analysis of publication, peer review, error rate, and acceptance are all tied to testing. Since this Court has found that testing is not required, or particularly significant, in this case, Nagourney’s testimony is sufficiently reliable without peer review or known error rate. Therefore, those factors are inapplicable here.
c. Helpfulness to the Trier of Fact
Saft agued that Nagourney’s opinion “will not assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue” for all the reasons previously alleged.
Nagourney’s qualifications as an expert witness are not challenged. Therefore, Nagourney’s report and opinions are based on his examination of provided facts and evidence and rely upon his technical and specialized knowledge of LBB’s to opine as to the cause of the May fires. Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 this is helpful to the trier of fact in determining whether Saft had manufactured or designed defective LBBs, key fact at issue regarding whether Ahtna could indemnify Saft for damages arising from the May event. Moreover, the Court has already examined Daubert factors that Saft cumulatively alleges here and finds that they do not make Nagourney’s opinion unreliable. The Court concluded that Nagourney’s opinions are helpful to the trier of fact.
Vouching for Another Expert
Saft alleged that the testimony in Nagourney’s supplemental report is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 703 as it’s use of engineer Keith Thobe’s report is merely “vouching for the truth of what another expert told him.”
However, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and 703 make clear that experts can rely on the data of others in certain circumstances. The drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence “specifically contemplated that experts would rely on others with specialized knowledge.’” In conclusion, the Court held that Nagourney’s usage of data from an engineer in his own supplemental report is nothing more than the use of data from a source with specialized knowledge, a practice contemplated and permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Held
The Court denied Saft’s motion to exclude the testimony of Tal Nagourney.
Key Takeaways:
- Firstly, Nagourney’s opinions do not touch on an ultimate issue of this claim, which is whether the LBBs were defectively designed such that they were the primary cause of the May event.
- Secondly, Nagourney was unable to perform independent testing of the LBB’s as they are government property and requests to conduct an examination were repeatedly denied by the other parties.
- Thirdly, Nagourney’s report and opinions are based on his examination of provided facts and evidence and rely upon his technical and specialized knowledge of LBB’s to opine as to the cause of the May fires.
- Fourthly, Nagourney’s usage of data from an engineer in his own supplemental report is nothing more than the use of data from a source with specialized knowledge, a practice contemplated and permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Raytheon Company V. Ahtna Support And Training Services, Llc Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 3:21cv239 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Kentucky Western |
| Order Date: | November 15, 2024 |
Leave a Reply