Stephen Wyman and John Goolsby, a partnership v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs were Stephen Wyman and Nancy Long, a partnership doing business as Boulder Creek Brewery and Café, and Stephen Wyman. They sued Sunbeam Products, Inc. and Regal Beloit America, Inc. over negligence and strict product liability after a ceiling fan manufactured by Sunbeam in 1994 caught fire and damaged the plaintiffs’ business.

The order summarizes oral rulings issued at the April 8, 2021 final pretrial conference on the parties’ motions in limine. Motions in limine are requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be presented to the jury. The court applied Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the principles of Daubert, which require the judge to screen expert testimony for relevance and reliability. The court explained that those rules guard against unreliable or irrelevant opinions but do not guarantee that an admitted expert’s conclusions are correct; disputes about facts and the weight of an opinion generally remain for the jury.

Plaintiffs’ Motions

* Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1: The motion was terminated as moot in the summary of rulings. The amended version of Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1 was denied. Plaintiffs sought to exclude defense fire expert Carl J. Natale and references to his investigation, arguing that he was not a licensed fire investigator and that his investigation did not follow the scientific method. The court concluded that California licensing requirements cited by the plaintiffs apply to private investigators, not litigation consultants or experts gathering information to form trial opinions. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ general challenge under Daubert. The court noted Natale’s more than 52 years of experience investigating fire origins and causes and his certifications on that subject.

* Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 2: The motion was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs sought to limit testimony from defense electrical engineer Dr. E.P. Hamilton concerning a thermal cutoff device, or TCO, and markings on an I-bar. The court found Hamilton’s October 16, 2020 supplemental report untimely and barred testimony connected to the late report, except that defendants could introduce portions agreeing with plaintiffs’ expert Kevin Lewis. The court denied the broader request to exclude Hamilton’s opinions about the TCO and I-bar. It found that Hamilton’s 50 years as an electrical engineer, Ph.D. in engineering, and laboratory examination of the I-bar supplied a sufficient basis for those opinions. The court stated that concerns requiring metallurgy expertise could be addressed through cross-examination.

* Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 3: The motion was denied. Plaintiffs sought to bar Hamilton from testifying that he knew of no scientific studies or test data verifying that a similar fan and motor had ignited or caused a fire. The court found no authority requiring a defense rebuttal expert to conduct independent studies or tests.

* Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4: The motion was granted. Plaintiffs sought to prevent defense expert Brian Hennig from testifying about the fair market value of their personal-property losses. Because Hennig did not determine that fair market value, the court ruled that he could not offer an opinion on it.

Defendants’ Motions

* Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1: The motion was denied. Defendants sought to exclude plaintiffs’ fire-causation expert Kevin Lewis, arguing that his theory was untested and lacked sufficient facts and data. The court rejected the argument that an expert may not rely on peer-reviewed literature instead of conducting tests. It found that expert testimony may be reliable when grounded in the knowledge and experience of the relevant field.

* Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2: The motion was granted with one exception. Defendants sought to exclude testimony from commercial real estate broker Russell E. Gross about rebuilding the plaintiffs’ restaurant. The court found that Gross’s own restaurant-rebuild experience had minimal value because the factual circumstances differed substantially and that the risk of confusion outweighed that value. Gross could not testify about his restaurant rebuild to suggest that a similar result would have occurred at Boulder Creek. The court permitted the parties to depose Gross and invited a limiting instruction on this point.

* Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3: The motion was granted as to plaintiffs’ lost profits between the date of loss, March 19, 2015, and the present. Defendants sought to limit evidence of lost business income, arguing that damages should not continue indefinitely and that the business’s market value on the date of loss would control if the business did not reopen. The court nevertheless allowed plaintiffs to present a business-interruption theory. Because the plaintiffs operated The Boulder Creek Outpost at a loss before closing it in September 2017, they could seek lost profits from the date of loss through the date the Outpost closed.

* Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4: The opinion’s summary lists this motion as denied. Defendants sought to exclude evidence using replacement cost, actual cash value, or undisclosed evidence concerning the fair market value of the plaintiffs’ business personal-property loss. The court stated that fair market value was the proper measure, but plaintiffs could offer other measures, such as repair costs, to help persuade the jury about fair market value. The court found that Thomas Richmann had a sufficient foundation to offer an opinion about the personal property. Wyman could testify from personal knowledge about the value of his property, but lacked a foundation to give expert testimony about its fair market value on the date of loss. The court invited a limiting instruction on that issue.

* Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5: The motion was granted with one exception. Defendants sought to exclude evidence about other fan-related incidents, reports, warnings, and materials, as well as video footage of a purported fan fire. The court allowed plaintiffs to offer evidence or testimony about a Consumer Product Safety Commission report because the incidents discussed in that report were substantially similar to this case. Defendants could seek a limiting instruction if differences might confuse the jury. The court barred the identified fan-fire video and any other fan-fire video because of the danger of prejudice, inflamed passions, and confusion. Plaintiffs’ experts also could not testify about or refer to the remaining listed materials because plaintiffs had not shown that those incidents were substantially similar.

Disposition and Effect

This was a pretrial evidence order, not a final decision on whether either side ultimately prevailed on the negligence or strict product-liability claims. The court issued the specific motion dispositions described above and provided procedures for raising additional trial disputes. The order was signed by United States District Judge Beth Labson Freeman on April 19, 2021.