In re Toyota Motor Corp., Case No. 8:10ML 02151 JVS.

• Court: United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
• Writing for the Court: JAMES V. SELNA
• Citation: 978 F.Supp.2d 1053
• Decision Date: 07 October 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 8:10ML 02151 JVS.
• Parties: In re TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. UNINTENDED ACCELERATION MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

978 F.Supp.2d 1053

In re TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. UNINTENDED ACCELERATION MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Case No. 8:10ML 02151 JVS.

United States District Court,
C.D. California.

Oct. 7, 2013.

[978 F.Supp.2d 1060]

Todd A. Walburg, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, San Francisco, CA, Benjamin L. Bailey, Eric B. Snyder, Rodney Arthur Smith, Robert P. Lorea, Bailey And Glasser LLP, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, Edgar F. Heiskell Attorney at Law, Charleston, WV, Peter J. Cambs, Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, Bonita Springs, FL, Lisa M. Hasselman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs.

Harold E. Franklin, Jr., Derin B. Dickerson, Anneke J. Shepard, King & Spalding LLP, Cari K. Dawson, Kyle G.A. Wallace, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, Jason A. Golden, Montgomery Rennie and Jonson, Gregory A. Harrison, Dinsmore & Shohl, Cincinnati, OH, Jimmy B. Wilkins, David Lawrence Ayers, Watkins and Eager, Jennifer Ann Rogers, Watkins and Eager PLLC, Jackson, MS, Joel H. Smith, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Steven A. McKelvey, William H. Latham, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Columbia, SC, Lawrence C. Mann, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Troy, MI, Suzanne Hero Swaner, Tanya Buler Scarbrough, J. Karl Viehman, Suzanne H. Swaner, Yesenia E. Cardenas–Colenso, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Dallas, TX, John D. Arya, Alston & Bird LLP, Nathan J. Marcusen, Bard D. Borkon, Theodore Dorenkamp, Bowman & Brooke LLP, Minneapolis, MN, Theane Evangelis Kapur, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Rachel Aleeza Rappaport, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Lisa Gilford, Michael Kevin Brown, Thomas Jerome Nolan, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Los Angeles, CA, C. Brandon Wisoff, Douglas R. Young, Farella Braun and Martel LLP, Robert A. Brundage, Bingham McCutchen LLP, San Francisco, CA, Abbey Chun Furlong, Robert V.P. Waterman, Jr., Lane & Waterman LLP, Davenport, IA, Andrew B. Cooke, Susan W. Romaine, Flaherty Sensabaugh & Bonasso, Rebecca A. Betts, Betts Hardy and Rodgers PLLC, Charleston, WV, Anne O. Hanna, Bradley M. Tanner, Curtis E. Jimerson, Kathleen A. York, Vincent Galvin, Jr., Bowman and Brooke LLP, San Jose, CA, Antonio Gnocchi–Franco, Gnocchi–Franco Law Office, San Juan, PR, Clem C. Trischler, Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick and Raspanti LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Craig Carpenito, Karl Geercken, Alston & Bird LLP, John P. Hooper, Reed Smith LLP, New York, NY, Daniel W. Olivas, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr., Lewis King Krieg & Waldrop PC, Donna La Kae Roberts, Stephen H. Price, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, Nashville, TN,

[978 F.Supp.2d 1061]

David J. Russell, Keller Rohrback LLP, Seattle, WA, H. Franklin Hostetler, III, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Jimmy Yongki Park, Brendan Chan, Gregory P. Gilmer, Bowman and Brooke, Torrance, CA, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Joel Allen Dewey, DLA Piper LLP, Baltimore, MD, Lee A. Rosenthal, Linsey W. West, Dinsmore and Shohl LLP, Lexington, KY, Mark N. Bodin, McGlinchey Stafford PLLC, New Orleans, LA, Michael Ross Tein, Kathryn Ashley Meyers, Lewis Tein PL, Coconut Grove, FL, Mike H. Madokoro, Bowman and Brooke, Gardena, CA, Patrick Darrow Wilson, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, AR, Paul J. Osowski, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Charlotte, NC, Robert B. Anderson, May, Adam, Gerdes & Thompson, Pierre, SD, Robert L. Blank, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell PA, Tampa, FL, Robert G. Scumaci, Gibson, McAskill & Crosby LLP, Buffalo, NY, Ross W. Johnson, Faegre and Benson LLP, Des Moines, IA, Steven R. Kramer, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains, NY, Thomas M. Klein, William Francis Auther, Mary Michelle Kranzow, Bowman & Brooke LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Timothy R. Bricker, Michael Hiram Carpenter, Karen M. Cadieux, Carpenter Lipps & LeLand LLP, Columbus, OH, Kendra N. Beckwith, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Denver, CO, Greg W. Marsh, Greg W. Marsh Law Offices, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants.

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony (“ Daubert Motions”) Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Toyota's Motion for Summary Judgment
JAMES V. SELNA, District Judge.

Table of Contents

PART ONE: THE MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE
1064

I.	Introduction—The St. John Collision	1064
II.	Admissibility of Expert Opinion Testimony and Reports	1064
III.	Motion to Exclude Expert Evidence Regarding Institutional Bias of Investigating Agency	1067
IV.	Motions to Exclude Expert Evidence Regarding Medical/Human Factors	1068

A.	Burton	1068
B.	Cassini	1069
C.	Gill	1070
D.	Pierce	1072
E.	Polydefkis	1073

V. Motions to Exclude Expert Evidence Regarding Mechanical
Issues/Corrosion in Throttle Body
1074

A.	Anderson	1074
B.	Kitchen	1075

VI. Motions to Exclude Opinions Regarding Software Defects
1077

A.
Muckenhirn
1077

(1)	Opinion Regarding the Full–Throttle Bug	1077
(2)	Opinion that Memory Corruption Can Cause SUA from Idle	1078
(3)	Opinion that the A/D Converter is a “Single Point of Failure”	1079

B.
Barr
1079

(1)	Opinion Regarding the Full–Throttle Bug	1080
(2)–(4)	Opinions Regarding Task Death, Disabling of Fail–Safes, and Causation	1080

(a)	Opinions Regarding Task Death	1081
(b)	Opinions Regarding Toyota's Fail–Safes	1081
(c)	Causation Opinion	1081

(5)	Other Opinions Expressed in Report	1081
(6)	Opinion Regarding Pedal Misapplication and Brake Pressure	1081

(a)	Opinion Regarding Pedal Misapplication	1081
(b)	Opinion Regarding Brake Pressure	1082

C.
Jones
1082

(1)–(3)
Opinions Regarding Task Death, Disabling of Fail–Safes, and Causation
1082

(a)	Opinion Regarding Task Death	1082
(b)	Opinion Regarding Toyota's Fail–Safes	1083
(c)	Causation Opinions	1083

(4)
Other Opinions Regarding Multiple Major
Mistakes
1083

D.
van Schoor
1084

(1)	Opinions Regarding a Brake Override System	1084
(2)	Opinions Related to Pedal Sensor Circuit; Resistance	1084
(3)	Opinion that Mrs. St. John Was Attempting to Brake	1085
(4)	Opinion Regarding Mrs. St. John's Control of the Camry	1085
(5)	Opinion Regarding Toyota's Conformance with Coding Standards	1085
(6)	Opinion Regarding the Camry's Brake Switch	1085
(7)	Opinion Related to the Camry's Vacuum Brake–Assist Booster	1085
(8)	Opinions Regarding Other Similar Incidents (“OSIs”)	1086

E.
Loudon
1086

(1)–(2)	Opinions Regarding Toyota's Understanding	1087
(3), (6) & (7)	Causation Opinions	1087
(4)	Opinions Regarding the STP Brake Switch or; Sensor Design	1087
(5)	Opinions Regarding Toyota's Software Development Process and the Resulting Defective Nature of the Software Developed Pursuant to that Process	1087
(8)	Opinion that the Lack of a Brake Override or Panic Braking System Makes the Camry Design Negligent	1088

F.	Koopman	1088
G.	Arora	1089

VII. Motions to Exclude Opinions Regarding Braking System
1090

(1)	Opinion that Mrs. St. John Was Applying the Brakes	1090
(2)	Opinions Regarding Brake Pedal Application Forces	1090
(3)	Opinions that Flow from Hannemann's Brake Testing	1090

PART TWO: THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1091

I.	Summary Judgment Standard	1091
II.	Statement of Uncontroverted Facts	1092
III.	Claims Asserted and Governing State–Law Legal Standards	1094

A.
Design and Manufacturing Defects—Statutory Claim
1095

(1)	Elements of a Design Defect Claim	1095
(2)	Elements of a Manufacturing Defect Claim	1096
(3)	Burden of Proof and the Role of Circumstantial Evidence	1096

B.	Negligent Product Design and Manufacturing	1100
C.	Failure to Warn	1100

IV. Discussion
1100

A.	Design Defect	1101
B.	Manufacturing Defect	1102
C.	Negligence	1102
D.	Failure to Warn	1102

V. Conclusion
1103

[978 F.Supp.2d 1063]

The St. John case is a member case in the multi-district litigation (“MDL”), and arises out of a single-vehicle collision (“the collision”) involving a 2005 Toyota Camry (“the Camry”) that allegedly resulted from an incident of sudden, unintended acceleration (“SUA”). Defendants in this action are Toyota Motor Corporation (“TMC”), Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (“TMS”), and Toyota Engineering & Manufacturing America, Inc. (collectively, “Toyota” or “the Toyota Defendants”). Plaintiff is the estate of the driver of the Camry, the now-deceased Ida Starr St. John,¹ and the present action is brought by and through the executor of the estate, William Curtis Grasty, Jr.² In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff brings claims for strict products liability and negligence. ³ ( St. John Docket No. 43.)

This matter is before the Court on sixteen Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony. Toyota moves to exclude all or portions of the testimony and/or opinions of thirteen of Plaintiff's experts; Plaintiff moves to exclude all or portions of the testimony and/or opinions of three of Toyota's experts. This matter is also before the Court on Toyota's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties filed extensive evidentiary records in support of and in opposition to the present Motions, and they filed timely Opposition and Reply briefs to every Motion.

As set forth herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Toyota's

[978 F.Supp.2d 1064]

Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony, and the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony. The Court GRANT IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Toyota's Motion for Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is granted as to the manufacturing defect claim and the negligence claim, but summary judgment is denied as to the design defect claim and the failure to warn claim.

Because much of the expert evidence forms the underpinning of both sides' positions on summary judgment, the Court addresses the Daubert motions first.

PART ONE: THE MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE I. Introduction—The St. John Collision

As detailed more fully infra, Part Two, Section II, the collision at issue here occurred after the driver, Mrs. St. John, was stopped and ready to turn right at a stop sign in front of an elementary school. Before her death, Mrs. St. John testified in both a discovery and a trial deposition that when she removed her foot from the brake pedal, the Camry immediately accelerated without her depressing the accelerator pedal. She testified that application of the brakes did nothing to...