As to what led up to the appeal, see our post titled, Barhanovich case: Suzuki released, Bean appeals
The Expert Reports
A little more information on the expert report in question and its timing is below.
Bean’s expert, Edward Fritsch of ATA Associates, prepared an expert report dated 19 October 2014. At the end of the report, he lists a total of 3 opinions. They were basically, (1) But for failure of the Suzuki outboard swivel bracket, the engine would not have entered the boat and struck Mr. Barhanovich. (2) The extent of fracture of the swivel bracket on the Barhanovich boat is much greater than that of similar brackets failed in the lab and requires evaluation of the properties of the specific bracket on the Barhanovich boat. (3) If Mr. Barhanovich knew a dredge pipe was in the area, he should have been going less than 28 mph.Per Bean, Suzuki did not provide full responses to their discovery til 6 April 2015.
Edward Fritsch, Bean’s expert, filed a supplement (update) to his report on 30 July 2015 said to be based on additional things learned from Suzuki’s disclosure. In this report Mr. Fritsch lists a total of 10 opinions, all of which target Suzuki.
Suzuki basically claimed the first expert report was not relevant because it did not make direct claims against Suzuki.
Suzuki claimed the second report introduced ideas and opinions not in the first report. Per Bean supplemental reports were only to expand on ideas previously discussed, not to introduce new opinions.
Suzuki was thus able to get both reports and Mr. Fritsch’s testimony (deposition) tossed from the case on 16 September 2016, just two weeks before the scheduled trial.
That left Bean holding an empty bag when Suzuki moved for summary judgement.
The judge granted summary judgement to Suzuki and Bean appealed. Read More→