Plaintiff Amcor Flexibles North America, Inc. (Amcor) brought this action against Defendant Reynolds Packaging, LLC (Reynolds), asserting claims for negligence, indemnification, and breach of warranty arising out of Amcor’s purchase from Reynolds of allegedly defective zippered, food-storage pouches.
Reynolds sued the Third-Party Defendant Reynolds Presto Products, Inc. (Presto), the manufacturer of the zipper component used in the pouches, for breach of implied warranty.
Reynolds offered the opinion of Matthew Furrer in support of its contention that Presto’s zippers were defective.
Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness
Matthew J. Furrer is the owner and a primary consulting engineer at Krenz Engineering. He holds a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the Mechanical Engineering department at the University of Wisconsin – Madison.
Discussion by the Court
Amcor manufactures flexible packaging materials, many of which are used to package food products. Tru Fru, one of Amcor’s customers, ordered zippered, food-storage pouches for its chocolate-covered frozen and/or freeze-dried fruit products. Amcor subcontracted with Reynolds to produce the pouches from the film Amcor provided, and Reynolds purchased the plastic zippers that made the pouches resealable from Presto. Reynolds incorporated the zippers into the pouches and then shipped the finished product to co-packers to be filled with Tru Fru product. During the packaging process, a fuzz-like plastic contaminant known as “angel hair” was found in some of the packages.
Furrer, a mechanical engineer, did not dispute the finding of the joint investigation that the zipper guide originally on the Hudson-Sharp machine was a cause of the angel hair in the finished Tru Fru product. In fact, Furrer did not analyze the zipper guide and made no attempt to determine whether the machine caused the problem. Nor did Furrer dispute that once the Hudson-Sharp zipper guide was modified, no further angel hair contamination was noted. Instead, Furrer’s opinion was that there could have been another cause of the angel hair contamination, namely, that the zippers provided by Presto were defective in that they had angel hair accumulations at the time the zipper material was delivered to Reynolds and before it was incorporated into the pouches.
Analysis
Regardless of whether Furrer is qualified by his education, training, or experience, the Court is satisfied that Reynolds has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his methodology is reliable or that the proffered testimony is relevant.
To begin with, Furrer’s methodology involved conducting a test that had little resemblance to the actual operation of the machines used to produce the pouches, and the test was conducted on zipper material that had previously been rejected by Reynolds as nonconforming because of the presence of strings.
It is undisputed that this rejected material was not used to produce the pouches that were delivered to Tru Fru’s co-packagers and were later found to contain the angel hair contaminant. This is not a test that could produce a reliable answer to the question of whether the zipper material actually used to produce the Tru Fru pouches was defective.
Held
The Court granted Presto’s motion to exclude the expert opinion of Matthew Furrer.
Key Takeaway
Furrer is unable to offer more than speculation as to whether the zipper material actually utilized in the Tru Fru pouches was defective. In other words, his opinion that it could have been defective is insufficient to assist the factfinder. It is therefore irrelevant and thus inadmissible.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Amcor Flexibles North America Inc V. Reynolds Packaging LLC |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cv1306 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Wisconsin Eastern |
| Order Date: | June 03, 2026 |
Leave a Reply