In re Crash of Aircraft N93PC on July 7, 2013, at Soldotna, Alaska

WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
In re Crash of Aircraft N93PC ) No. 3:15-cv-0112-HRH
) [Consolidated with
on July 7, 2013, at Soldotna, Alaska ) No. 3:15-cv-0113-HRH and
_______________________________________) No. 3:15-cv-0115-HRH]
O R D E R
Honeywell’s Motion in Limine No. 4
Defendant Honeywell International moves to exclude certain opinions and testimony
of plaintiffs’ expert Mark Hood.1 This motion is opposed.2 Oral argument was requested
but is not deemed necessary.
Background
On July 7, 2013, a deHavilland DHC-3 “Otter” airplane operated by Rediske Air, Inc.
and piloted by Walter Rediske crashed shortly after take-off from the Soldotna Airport.
Rediske and all of the passengers on board were killed in the crash. A Honeywell TPE 331-
10R-511C turboprop engine had been installed in the accident aircraft. Plaintiffs, which are
1Docket No. 394.
2Docket No. 474.
-1-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 521 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 8

the estates of the passengers and Rediske, assert wrongful death, negligence, strict product
liability, and breach of warranty claims against Honeywell.
Plaintiffs retained Mark Hood, a materials engineer, “to perform a materials
engineering investigation regarding the . . . crash. . . .”3 In his report, Hood offered four
opinions:
1. The subject Honeywell TPE 331-10R engine’s compres-
sor and turbine section components did not exhibit
damage consist[ent] with an engine operating under
takeoff power conditions at the time of impact.
2. The torsion shaft in the subject Honeywell TPE 331-10R
engine failed in shear overload.
3. The destruction of the aft bushing of the subject torsion
shaft installed in the subject Honeywell TPE 331-10R
engine, along with significant rotational scoring and
thermal discoloration at the aft bushing land, is consis-
tent with in-flight shear failure of the torsion shaft.
4. The post-accident condition of the torsion shaft bushing
contact areas inside the main shaft installed in the subject
Honeywell TPE 331-10R engine is also consistent with
in-flight shear failure of the torsion shaft.[4]
At his deposition, Hood testified that one of the “probabilities” in this case was that the
aft bushing . . . adher[ed] to the main shaft or the torsion shaft.
If it [the aft bushing] were adhered both momentarily and then
released, then . . . that would be a sudden transfer or . . . change
3Materials Engineering Investigation Report at 1, Exhibit A, Honeywell’s Motion in
Limine No. 4 [etc.], Docket No. 394.
4Id. at 7.
-2-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 521 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 8

in the torque of a loading at the aft end of the . . . shaft. I can
see that as one way to . . . shear the shaft.[5]
Hood also testified that he did not do any analysis to determine why the torsion shaft was
bent, but that he thought it was bent during manufacture.6
Pursuant to Rule 702, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Honeywell now moves to
exclude Hood’s opinion and testimony “(1) that the airplane engine’s torsion shaft was bent
at manufacture[]; and (2) that the aft bushing of the torsion shaft momentarily bound to the
main shaft and then released possibly causing enough force to shear the torsion shaft.”7
Discussion
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that expert
opinion evidence is admissible if: (1) the witness is sufficiently
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training,
or education; (2) the scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence
or to determine a fact in issue; (3) the testimony is based on
sufficient facts or data; (4) the testimony is the product of
reliable principles and methods; and (5) the expert has reliably
applied the relevant principles and methods to the facts of the
case.
City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014).
“Before admitting expert testimony into evidence, the district court must perform a
‘gatekeeping role’ of ensuring that the testimony is both ‘relevant’ and ‘reliable’ under Rule
5Deposition of Mark B. Hood, P.E., at 24:24-25:8, Exhibit B, Honeywell’s Motion
in Limine No. 4 [etc.], Docket No. 394.
6Id. at 51:1-23.
7Honeywell’s Motion in Limine No. 4 [etc.] at 2, Docket No. 394.
-3-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 521 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 8

702.” United States v. Ruvalcaba-Garcia, 923 F.3d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597 (citation omitted).
“Relevancy simply requires that ‘the evidence logically advance a material aspect of
the party’s case.’” Ruvalcaba-Garcia, 923 F.3d at 1188-89 (quoting Estate of Barabin v.
AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457, 463 (9th Cir. 2014)). “Expert testimony which does not
relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful.” Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 591 (1993).
“‘[R]eliability’ . . . requires that the expert’s testimony have ‘a reliable basis in the
knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline.’” Id. at 1188-89 (quoting Barabin, 704
F.3d at 463). “The district court must assess whether ‘the reasoning or methodology
underlying the testimony is scientifically valid’ and ‘properly can be applied to the facts in
issue[.]’” Id. at 1189 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592–93). “‘The district court is not
tasked with deciding whether the expert is right or wrong, just whether his testimony has
substance such that it would be helpful to a jury.’” City of Pomona, 750 F.3d at 1044
(quoting Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969-70 (9th Cir.
2013)). “The court must assess the expert’s reasoning or methodology, using as appropri-
ate[,] criteria such as testability, publication in peer-reviewed literature, known or potential
error rate, and general acceptance.” Id. “But these factors are meant to be helpful, not
definitive, and the trial court has discretion to decide how to test an expert’s reliability as
well as whether the testimony is reliable, based on the particular circumstances of the
particular case.” Id. (citation omitted).
-4-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 521 Filed 06/22/21 Page 4 of 8

Honeywell first moves to exclude Hood’s opinion and testimony about the cause of
the bent torsion shaft. The parties have stipulated that Hood may not testify “about the
possible cause of the bend in the torsion shaft and specifically that the torsion shaft was bent
at manufacture and/or that it was installed in the engine in a bent condition.”8
Honeywell next moves to exclude Hood’s opinion and testimony about the possible
momentary binding and release of the aft bushing (the “Momentary Binding theory”).
Honeywell argues that Hood’s opinion and testimony regarding the Momentary Binding
theory are neither relevant nor reliable.
Honeywell argues that Hood’s opinion and testimony regarding the Momentary
Binding theory are not relevant because plaintiffs have not advanced such a theory in this
case. Rather, Honeywell contends that plaintiffs’ theory in this case is that “a bend in the
torsion shaft caused the torsion shaft’s aft bushing to bind to the main shaft, which caused
an erroneously low torque reading, which led the pilot to over-torque the engine, which
caused the torsion shaft to shear.”9 Honeywell argues that this “over-torquing theory” does
not appear to involve the momentary binding and release of the bushing, thereby making
Hood’s opinion and testimony about such a binding and release irrelevant. Honeywell
argues that allowing Hood’s opinion and testimony about the possible momentary binding
of the bushing will only confuse the jury. Honeywell also suggests that plaintiffs are
8Stipulation Regarding Certain Motions in Limine at 1, Docket No. 468.
9Honeywell’s Motion in Limine No. 4 [etc.] at 8, Docket No. 394.
-5-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 521 Filed 06/22/21 Page 5 of 8

intending to offer the Momentary Binding theory as an independent, standalone theory as to
what caused the torsion shaft to shear, which Honeywell contends would make it an untimely
disclosed expert opinion.
Hood’s Momentary Binding theory opinion is not an untimely disclosed expert
opinion as Hood disclosed this theory at his deposition. This opinion and related testimony
are also not irrelevant, given that plaintiffs may be able to rely on the consumer expectation
test in this case, which applies in a design defect case. In a design defect case, “the
factfinder can find a product defective . . . if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed
to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or
reasonably foreseeable manner. . . .” General Motors Corp. v. Farnsworth, 965 P.2d 1209,
1220 (Alaska 1998) (citation omitted). Hood’s Momentary Binding theory is relevant to
plaintiffs’ contention that the shaft sheared in flight, which a torsion shaft is not supposed
to do.
As for whether Hood’s opinion and testimony regarding the Momentary Binding
theory are reliable, plaintiffs argue that Hood’s opinion and testimony regarding the
Momentary Binding theory are reliable. Plaintiffs contend that Hood’s primary opinion is
that the torsion shaft in the accident aircraft failed in flight and that this opinion is based on
the physical evidence that the engine was not running when it hit the ground. At his
deposition, when asked if he had any theories as to how the torsion shaft could have sheared
in flight, Hood offered the Momentary Binding theory. Hood testified that this theory was
-6-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 521 Filed 06/22/21 Page 6 of 8

based on “one of the Honeywell analyses of . . . one of the other accidents[.]”10 The “other
accident” Hood was referring to was the Owasso Incident, which involved a 2013 crash of
a MU-2B-25, which had two Honeywell TPE 331-10AV-511M engines installed. In an
analysis of those engines done by Honeywell, it was stated that the “aft bushing . . . operates
at a higher temperature than the forward bushing” and that “[t]his higher temperature can
result in the aft bushing adhering to either shaft due to oil coking.”11 The report goes on to
say that “significant bushing damage can occur for cases where the bushing adherence is high
and the shaft relative motion persists for . . . several seconds.”12 Given that Hood’s
Momentary Binding theory is based on Honeywell’s own admission that aft bushings can
adhere to the shafts, plaintiffs argue that Hood’s opinion and testimony on this issue are
plainly reliable. As for any complaint that Hood did not do any testing to verify his
Momentary Binding theory, plaintiffs contend that Hood “testified that testing would be
impractical as there are so many variables such as how much adherence of the bushing there
was, how the adherence breaks free, whether it occurs just once or [whether] there [are]
10Hood Deposition at 24:25-25:3, Exhibit B, Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to
Honeywell’s Motion in Limine No. 4 [etc.], Docket No. 474.
11Honeywell Analysis at 8, Exhibit C, Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to
Honeywell’s Motion in Limine No. 4 [etc.], Docket No. 474.
12Id.
-7-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 521 Filed 06/22/21 Page 7 of 8

repetitive bindings and release.”13 Plaintiffs argue that any questions about testing go to the
weight that should be given Hood’s opinion, not the admissibility.
Hood’s opinion and testimony about the Momentary Binding theory are unreliable.
Hood did nothing to test this theory. Rather, it is based on Honeywell’s analysis of the
engines in the Owasso Incident, which as discussed in the court’s order on Honeywell’s
motions in limine Nos. 1 and 2, involved a different aircraft with different Honeywell
engines that had different torsion shafts. While an expert can certainly rely on other
accidents as a basis for an opinion, a couple of statements in Honeywell’s analysis of the
Owasso Incident engines are not sufficient support for Hood’s opinion that a torsion shaft
could shear in flight because of momentary binding.
Conclusion
Honeywell’s motion in limine No. 4 is granted. Hood is precluded from offering his
opinion and testimony about the Momentary Binding theory.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 22nd day of June 2021.
/s/ H. Russel Holland
United States District Judge
13Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Honeywell’s Motion in Limine No. 4 [etc.] at
3, Docket No. 474.
-8-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 521 Filed 06/22/21 Page 8 of 8