The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
I. Introduction and Background
Now before the Court is Defendant J.P. Murray Company, Inc.'s, d/b/a Murray Company ("Murray Company"), Motion Pursuant to FED.R.EVID. 702 to Exclude/Limit Testimony of William Mr. Pistrui (Doc. 146). Specifically, Defendant Murray Company seeks to limit certain testimony of Plaintiff's expert witness Mr. Pistrui because he either lacks the requisite knowledge to substantiate his opinions or his opinions are not helpful. Defendant seeks to exclude Mr. Pistrui's opinions on three subjects:
a) regarding what the manufacturer's recommendations for Blaze Shield II fireproofing state regarding roof traffic or its effect on the fireproofing's bond, and whether Murray Company failed to follow the manufacturer's recommendations in allowing roof traffic before the fireproofing material cured or after;
b) regarding whether "good construction practices" prohibit roof traffic during or after application of Blaze Shield II and whether Murray Company failed to follow "good construction practices" in allowing roof traffic before the material cured or after; and
c) regarding whether Mr. Pistrui believes roof traffic/deck deflection or application problems cause the fireproofing failures at issue.
Plaintiff has filed a response to the motion (Doc. 160). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Mr. Pistrui does have the necessary knowledge, experience, and information to substantiate his opinions. Defendant J.P. Murray has filed a reply (Doc. 164). Based on the following, the Court DENIES Defendant J.P. Murray's motion to exclude/limit the testimony of Mr. Pistrui (Doc. 146).
Defendant raises its objections to Mr. Pistrui's findings under FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702. FED.R.EVID.702 provides that:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or date, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
A Court may admit expert evidence if the witness is both qualified and the testimony would be helpful to the jury.See United States v. Winbush, 580 F.3d 503, 310 (7th Cir. 2009). In making this determination district courts rely on a "three-step analysis: the witness must be qualified 'as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,' FED.R.EVID.702; the expert's reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony must be scientifically reliable, [Daubert v. Merell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592, 93, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993);]*fn1 and the testimony must assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.Ervin v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 492 F.3d 901, 904 (7th Cir. 2007).
A. Manufacturer's Recommendations
The first opinion of Mr. Pistrui which Defendant seeks to exclude is Mr. Pistrui's opinion regarding the contents of Isolatek's recommendations regarding roof traffics and whether Defendant J.P. Murray followed those recommendations. Defendant argues that the opinions should be excluded because the information will not assist the jury as it comes from the installation manual which the jury can read.
Here, as Plaintiff argues, Mr. Pistrui merely discusses the manufacturer's requirements in order to better explain his opinion that J.P. Murray violated those requirements. Therefore, the Court finds that it is proper for Mr. Pistrui to discuss the requirements of the ...