Plaintiff Judith Bean alleged that this action arose from a February 28, 2023, trip-and-fall incident at Walmart Supercenter Facility #5686, located at 1301 N. Victory Place, Burbank, California, and asserted causes of action for negligence and premises liability.
Walmart filed a motion in limine to preclude Plaintiff’s expert witnesses, Alex J. Balian and Kuba Glazek, Ph.D., from testifying about certain topics. Plaintiff filed a motion in limine to exclude improper opinions by Walmart’s rebuttal safety expert, Michael V. Nichols.
Retail Store Expert Witness
Alex J. Balian has been in the retail industry as an owner, operator, and consultant for more than 65 years.
He has testified as a safety and operations expert in all areas of retail
store operations and public facilities involving supermarkets, commercial buildings, restaurants, warehouse facilities, home improvement stores and specialty stores for more than thirty years.
He has qualified as a retail safety expert and given expert testimony in state and federal courts in matters pertaining to retail operations throughout the United States.
Human Factors Expert Witness
Kuba J. Glazek has a Ph.D. in Brain and Cognitive Sciences. He has researched, published, presented, and consulted on human factors since 2006 and has applied his background in human cognition and scientific methods to analyze a variety of legal cases, including but not limited to premises, transportation, construction, industrial, products, sports, dram shop, and warnings cases.
Safety Expert Witness
Michael V. Nichols has a Bachelor of Science in Occupational Health & Safety, along with ample experience in retail security and safety. He has been practicing as a Safety Consultant since 1992, conducting safety inspections and consulting on liability and workers’ compensation.
Nichols also taught Accident Investigation, Cal-OSHA Law, and Workers’ Compensation at Cal State Dominguez Hills University for fifteen (15) years. As a safety expert witness, he has testified over 130 times and given more than 1300 depositions since 1992.
Discussion by the Court
I. Walmart’s MIL No. 4
First, Walmart argued that Balian, a “retail-safety” expert, cannot offer opinions regarding “human factors” because he has no expertise in that field.
Second, Walmart argued that Balian cannot offer opinions regarding prior incidents because his deposition testimony shows that he did not study the prior incidents to verify whether they were substantially similar and therefore probative.
Third, Walmart argued that Balian should be precluded from testifying that Walmart engaged in a “conscious and wanton disregard” for Plaintiff’s safety because he admitted at his deposition that he used the term in a non-legal way.
Finally, Walmart’s notice of the motion in limine further sought to exclude Plaintiff’s human factors expert, Kuba Glazek, Ph.D., on the ground that his testimony is unnecessary.
II. Plaintiff’s MIL No. 4
Plaintiff sought to exclude certain testimony by Walmart’s rebuttal retail safety expert, Michael V. Nichols, on the grounds that his opinions are beyond his designation as a rebuttal expert and/or are inadmissible credibility, advocacy, legal conclusion, and factual determination conclusions that invade the province of the jury or attempt to contradict Walmart’s binding admissions.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court found that a considerable amount of the content in Balian’s report, Glazek’s report, and Nichols’ rebuttal report will be inadmissible testimony at trial as improper legal conclusions or determinations that invade the province of the jury.
Accordingly, the Court will not permit any expert witness for either party to testify as to their conclusions regarding issues for the jury to decide, including: whether the stackbase at issue was “unsafe,” a “trip hazard,” a “dangerous condition,” or below industry safety standards; whether Walmart’s policies and/or training was adequate or met industry standards/a standard of care or whether Walmart employees could have prevented the incident.
Given that the Court found much of what Walmart objected to in Balian’s report and what Plaintiff objected to in Nichols’ report improper for reasons other than the reasons underlying the motions in limine, the Court need not specifically rule on each of the grounds in the respective motions in limine.
To the extent that Walmart sought to exclude Glazek from testifying as to human factors on the grounds that his testimony is unnecessary and cumulative, the Court denied Walmart’s motion. Glazek may provide testimony based on his specialized knowledge, such as to limits on visual perception, human behavior, etc., that would be helpful to the jury to interpret the evidence. But Glazek may not interpret the evidence for the jury. To the extent that Plaintiff sought to exclude Nichols’ testimony as outside of the scope of rebuttal, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion at this time. Plaintiff may raise such an objection to specific testimony at trial.
Held
The Court denied Walmart’s fourth motion in limine to preclude certain testimony by Alex Balian and Kuba Glazek as well as Plaintiff’s fourth motion in limine to exclude certain testimony by Michael Nichols.
Key Takeaway
To avoid expert witnesses invading the province of the jury, the Court does not permit expert witnesses to interpret the factual evidence in this case. Instead, expert witnesses may testify about industry standards, customs, best practices, and norms, and specialized knowledge relating to relevant topics.
Expert witnesses may be asked hypothetical questions to elicit expert opinions on the aforementioned topics but may not be asked to make conclusions about the facts or evidence of the instant case, as these are issues for the jury to decide.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Judith Bean V. Walmart Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv8871 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Central District of California |
| Order Date: | May 18, 2026 |
Leave a Reply