Free Order on Motion in Limine - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 131

Filed 03/06/2008

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ------------------------------x PETER D. MAINS and : LORI M. MAINS, : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : SEA-RAY BOATS, : : Defendant. : ------------------------------x

Civ No. 3:01CV02402 (AWT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINTS BY OTHER CONSUMERS For the reasons set forth below, defendant Sea Ray Division of Brunswick Corporation's ("Sea Ray") motion in limine to exclude evidence of complaints by other consumers is being granted. Thomas Wicander has been identified by the plaintiffs as an expert witness. Wicander personally serviced and/or supervised

the service of the boat engines of approximately 27 Sea Ray customers. Defendant Sea Ray seeks to exclude evidence of

complaints by other customers. The plaintiffs argue that Wicander should be permitted to testify about other problems he observed in Sea Ray boats because: His expert testimony is direct, relevant evidence of the existence of the exhaust system's design defect, the damage the design defect causes, the Defendant's ability 1

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 131

Filed 03/06/2008

Page 2 of 3

to correct the defect, the magnitude of the danger of the defect, and the product's lack of safety for intended uses. Plaintiffs' Memorandum (Doc. No. 116) at 2. However, a review of

Wicander's expert report, dated October 7, 2003 shows that, as contended by the defendant, Wicander has not been disclosed as an expert, or offered any opinion, on any of these subjects. See

Report of Thomas Wicander, Defendant's Reply (Doc. No. 122), Exhibit A. The plaintiffs cannot at this point expand the scope Also, to the extent that the

of Wicander's expert testimony.

plaintiffs might seek at this juncture to have Wicander testify as a fact witness with respect to the approximately 27 other Sea Ray boat engines of which he has personal knowledge, he has not been disclosed as a fact witness. To the extent that the plaintiffs might seek to use Wicander's knowledge of the 27 other Sea Ray boat engines to establish notice to the defendant, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated a basis for admission of such evidence for that purpose because Wicander's testimony was that he notified Bassett Boat Company, not defendant Sea Ray. With respect to Russell Rackcliffe, the plaintiffs also argue that evidence with respect to problems with Rackcliffe's boat is admissible to prove notice to Sea Ray. However, it

appears to be undisputed that Rackcliffe purchased his first Sea Ray boat after the plaintiffs purchased the boat at issue here in

2

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 131

Filed 03/06/2008

Page 3 of 3

1998.

Thus, it does not appear the plaintiffs can establish that

Sea Ray received notice of a complaint by Rackcliffe prior to the purchase by the plaintiffs of the boat that is the subject of this action. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Complaints by Other Consumers (Doc. No. 107) is hereby GRANTED. It is so ordered. Dated this 5th day of March 2008 at Hartford, Connecticut.

/s/AWT Alvin W. Thompson United States District Judge

3