Spearman Corporation Marysville Division v. The Boeing Company ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 SPEARMAN CORPORATION Case No. C20-13RSM MARYSVILLE DIVISION and 11 SPEARMAN CORPORATION KENT ORDER DENYING BOEING’S MOTION DIVISION, TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF 12 ROBERT WAGNER 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 THE BOEING COMPANY, 16 Defendant. 17 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Boeing’s Motion to Exclude Testimony 18 19 of Spearman Corporation Marysville Division and Spearman Corporation Kent Division 20 (“Spearman”)’s proposed expert Robert Wagner. Dkt. #134. Plaintiff Spearman opposes 21 Defendant’s Motion. Dkt. #152. The Court has determined that oral argument is unnecessary. 22 For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Exclude. 23 Plaintiff disclosed an initial report from Robert Wagner on December 22, 2021 (“Wagner 24 25 Report”). See Dkt. #135, Ex. A. Mr. The Wagner Report sets out seven categories of damages 26 that Plaintiff claims to have suffered. See Dkt. #135, Ex. A. With the exception of one category 27 —$5 million—the remaining claimed damages are for lost profits. Defendant seeks to exclude 28 Mr. Wagner’s testimony arguing that Wagner’s premise that Plaintiff is entitled to lost profits is 1 2 contrary to law, and that his calculations of lost profits are based on speculations and unreliable 3 assumptions. See Dkt. #134. Plaintiff argues that Boeing’s motion is not a proper Daubert 4 challenge as Defendant is merely attacking the factual basis and legal theories behind Mr. 5 Wagner’s opinions. See Dkt. #152. 6 A Daubert motion is appropriate when seeking to exclude an opposing party’s expert 7 8 testimony if the expert is not qualified, the expert’s opinion does not “rest on a reliable 9 foundation” or is not “relevant to the task at hand.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. 10 ("Daubert I"), 509 U.S. 579, 590, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993). As Plaintiff argues, 11 Defendant is not contesting Mr. Wagner’s qualification or methods, and this Court declines to use 12 13 its gatekeeping role to reach legal rulings as to available damages. Given Plaintiff’s arguments, 14 Defendant is free to move to exclude testimony at a later stage by filing a motion in limine. 15 Given all of the above, the Court finds no basis to exclude Mr. Wagner’s testimony. 16 Having reviewed the above Motions and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and 17 ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony of Spearman Proposed Expert 18 19 Robert Wagner, Dkt. #134, is DENIED. 20 DATED this 14th day of October 2022. 21 A 22 23 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28