Filed: Aug. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER DAVID L. RUSSELL , District Judge . Before this Court is Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiff's expert or, in the alternative, limit his testimony, see Doc. 28, to which Plaintiff has responded, see Doc. 31. The issues Defendant raises are best dealt with by limiting, rather than excluding, the testimony of both parties' experts; therefore, the Court denies Defendant's motion to exclude, but grants its alternative motion in limine. Although Defendant moves under Daubert v.
Summary: ORDER DAVID L. RUSSELL , District Judge . Before this Court is Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiff's expert or, in the alternative, limit his testimony, see Doc. 28, to which Plaintiff has responded, see Doc. 31. The issues Defendant raises are best dealt with by limiting, rather than excluding, the testimony of both parties' experts; therefore, the Court denies Defendant's motion to exclude, but grants its alternative motion in limine. Although Defendant moves under Daubert v. ..
More
ORDER
DAVID L. RUSSELL, District Judge.
Before this Court is Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiff's expert or, in the alternative, limit his testimony, see Doc. 28, to which Plaintiff has responded, see Doc. 31. The issues Defendant raises are best dealt with by limiting, rather than excluding, the testimony of both parties' experts; therefore, the Court denies Defendant's motion to exclude, but grants its alternative motion in limine.
Although Defendant moves under Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to preclude Plaintiff's claims handling/bad faith expert, Michael Duncan, from testifying at all, its objections target particular testimony it anticipates Duncan will provide based on the conclusions in his expert report. In support of its motion, Defendant cites an order issued in Nematpour v. GEICO General Insurance Co., CIV-15-851-W (W.D. Okla. Aug. 8, 2016), in which the court denied a similar Daubert motion, but granted an alternative motion in limine. See id. at 12; see also Doc. 28-2. Defendant also notes it too "retained an attorney expert" to testify on issues of bad faith, conceding its expert should be subject to the same limits it requests the Court impose on Mr. Duncan. In response to the motion Plaintiff also relies upon Nematpour and requests that this Court grant Defendant's alternative motion in limine.
In light of Defendant's focus on limiting rather than excluding Mr. Duncan's testimony, the Court DENIES Defendant's Daubert motion. Because the parties concede their respective experts should be subject to the limitations set forth in Defendant's alternative motion in limine, that motion is hereby GRANTED. The Court will restrict Plaintiff's expert, Michael Duncan, and Defendant's expert, Ron Walker, as follows. Neither expert shall:
(a) make statements regarding Oklahoma's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, 36 O.S. § 1250.1 et seq.;
(b) give opinions that constitute legal conclusions;
(c) interpret any laws that govern bad faith claims and, in particular, make any statements that attempt to define "bad faith" under Oklahoma law;
(d) use terms such as "bad faith," "good faith," "unfair," and "unreasonable" when describing the actions of CSAA; and
(e) opine that CSAA absolutely owed certain legal duties or that it breached such duties, or use terms such as "must" or "was required to" in connection with such duties.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
