Preview
Filing # 134424203 E-Filed 09/13/2021 09:01:48 AM
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARION
COUNTY, FLORIDA
MARSHA SUE PIDHERNEY,
PLAINTIFF,
Vs. CASE NUMBER: 2019-CA-2760
MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA,
A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEFENDANT.
/
DEPOSITION OF: JAMES R. IPSER, .PH.D.
DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 2021
TIME: 1:02 P.M. - 2:43 P.M.
PLACE: VIDEOCONFERENCING VIA ZOOM
STENOGRAPHICALLY
REPORTED BY: BETH BUNN, RPR, FPR
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER
FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL REPORTER
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE
JOY HAYES COURT REPORTING, LLC
407 COURTHOUSE SQUARE
INVERNESS, FL 34450
(352) 726-4451
OFFICE@JOYHAYESCOURTREPORTING.COM
Electronically Filed Marion Case # 19CA002760AX 09/13/2021 09:01:48 AM10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPEARANCE 8S:
D.
OF:
GRAHAM ANDERSON, ESQUIRE
Bogin, Munns & Munns, P.A.
1390 North Hancock Road
Suite 201
Clermont, Florida 34711-5978
352-243-8981
Ganderson@boginmunns.com
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
MATTHEW G. MINTER, ESQUIRE
OF:
County Attorney Office, Marion County
601 SE 25th Avenue
Ocala, Florida 34471-2690
352-438-2330
Matthew.minter@marioncountyfl.org
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
WILLIAM A. HARRIS, ESQUIRE
OF:
Marion County Board of County Commissioners
601 SE 25th Avenue
Ocala, Florida 34471-2690
352-438-2330
William.harris@marionfl.org
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX
TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. IPSER, PH.D.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ANDERSON........... 05
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MINTER...........6.. 99
CERTIFICATE OF OATH... ccc eee eee eee eee eee eee ewes 102
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT..........-- 103
ERRATA SHEET... . cee eee eee eee eee ee ee ee eee eee rene 104
NOTIFICATION LETTER. 1... cc ee ee ee ee wee ee eee 105
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
(NONE MARKED)
STIPULATIONS
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and
between the Counsel for the respective parties and
the deponent that the reading and signing of the
deposition transcript be reserved.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROCEEDINGS
KR RAKE
THE COURT REPORTER: The attorneys
participating in this deposition acknowledge
that I, the court reporter, am not present with
the witness and that I will be reporting the
proceedings and administering the oath
remotely.
This arrangement is pursuant to the
Florida Supreme Court Administrative Order No.
AOSC-20-16 (and extended by AOSC-20-17). The
parties and their Counsel consent to this
arrangement and waive any objections to this
manner of reporting.
Please indicate your agreement by stating
your name and your agreement on the record.
MR. ANDERSON: Graham Anderson, on behalf
of the Plaintiff and I agree.
MR. MINTER: Matthew Minter, for the
Defendant, and I agree.
THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, will you raise
your right hand for me, please.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give in this cause is
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
truth?
THE WITNESS: I do.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. All right. Dr. Ipser, could you please
state your full name for the record.
A. James Reid Ipser. That's I-P, as in Paul
S-E-R.
Q. And what is your current business address,
sir?
A. 2516 Northwest 22nd Drive, Gainesville,
Florida 32605.
Q. Who is that -- who is your employer?
A. I'm self-employed.
Q. Okay. And is that The TASA Group?
A. No, sir. It's -- I have a corporation
called The Florida Accident and Biomechanics
Institute.
Q. Okay. And I assume you are the sole
employee of that business?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the nature of that business, Dr.
Ipser?
A. Expert witness work involving accident
reconstruction and biomechanical physics.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Okay. How -- how long do you have -- when
you say "biomechanical physics", you don't mean
biomedical physics. Correct?
A. I do not.
Q. Okay. And how long have you done that
work as an expert?
A. Since 1993.
Q. Okay. Tell me what are your duties --
what are your duties as the sole principal of this
business?
A. To accept assignments when they are
offered and to carry out my analyses and
calculations.
Q. Okay. What's your hourly rates for doing
this?
A. Well, for my workup on a case, doing
calculations, collecting documents, reading
documents, et cetera, $275 an hour. The only
different component is expert witness testimony,
whether at deposition or at trial. For that
testimony itself, and that only, is $425 an hour.
Q. Okay. And so the -- the document that was
provided to me by Counsel in this matter lists your
standard deposition rate as $415 dollars per hour.
Has it gone up since this was provided to me?10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Well, I have $425. That's what I
understand.
Q. But I'm looking at a document dated June
llth, 2021 from your office, sir, that says your
hourly deposition rate is $415 an hour.
A. Well, it should be $425.
Q. Okay. And then it says your court dep --
or court testimony rate at $565 an hour. Does that
sound correct?
A. That has to do with TASA. When I'm --
I've been retain -- I've been retained actually
through TASA on this case.
Q. Okay.
A. So there's a different rate because they
-- they get some of the money.
Q. Okay. So TASA is basically, like, an
independent contracting company that filters you
out to people?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And how long have you been working
with TASA to get expert work?
A. Oh, since the 90's.
Q. And I'm assuming this is a referral
network that you have to buy into to basically get
work?10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. No, you don't buy -- I don't buy into it,
no.
Q. Okay. But they do take a cut of the
hourly rate?
A. According to the hourly rate that they
produced, yes, sir.
Q. Okay. So in this case, what is the
percentage they get?
A. Okay. So I see what you're saying now.
That $415, that must be their rate -- that must be
their total hourly rate for workup on a case. I
would get $275 an hour of that amount.
Q. Okay. So they're charging almost double
the rate for you to -- to workup a file?
A. Well, it's -- double the rate would be
$550, sow..
Q. It would be $550. So they're charging you
about 75 percent?
A. I haven't figured out the percentage, but
that sounds about right, yes.
Q. Okay. And in this case you were contacted
not by Mr. Minter's office, correct? Because I'm
assuming they contacted The TASA Group who then
reached out to you?
A. I believe that's correct.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Okay. Do you know which date you were
actually contacted in this case?
A. No. I -- I think it was around -- it was
the middle of July. I don't know the exact date.
Q. Well, I have a letter dated June 17th,
2021 for the retention of yourself. Do you know if
that's when you were retained? Or do you know if
that's when TASA was retained?
A. I think I was retained on June 18th, I
think.
Q. Okay. So you were retained on June 18th
of '21. And .do you know when you were first sent
materials to review in this file?
A. It would have been on that date. I have a
cover letter dated June 18th.
Q. Okay. Do you know if those records were
sent to you standard mail? Or were faxed to you?
Or e-mailed to you?
A. I think they were e-mailed.
Q. Okay. When did you actually review those
records? Did you mark which date you did that?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Did you do it that day? Or did you
do it a week later?
A. I don't know.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
Q. Okay. Is it possible you did do it a week
or two later?
A. It's possible. But I -- my normal way of
acting would be to at least look at the materials
as soon as they come in; perhaps, not do any
professional analyses, but to look at them. I
can't tell you for sure.
Q. Okay. Do you know, by any chance, when
the first time you relayed to Counsel any of your
opinions?
A. I don't have an exact date on that. I
think it would have been before July lst though.
Q. Okay. So you're positive though it was
not June 18th, correct, the day that you received
the materials?
A. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's true.
Q. Okay. So it was sometime between June
18th and July list?
A. When I first started relaying opinions,
yes.
Q. Okay. Do you know if it -- did you make
any notes of the date you had that conversation?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. Did you bill them for that
conversation?10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
A. I've only billed once so far.
Q. When was that? For what date?
A. Let me check. I have an invoice dated
August 4th, 2021.
Q. Okay. So is it safe to assume that you
may not have completed your opinions all the way
"til then August of 21?
A. It's possible.
Q. Okay. Is there any chance that your
opinions were 100 percent final within June 18th
and say June 25th of 2021?
A. I don't think so. No.
Q. Okay. All right. Let's go through a
little bit of your educational history, Dr. Ipser.
I know you and I have spoken before, but I'll --
just for purposes of this case, we'll go through
that.
What -- could you list out your
educational history for me?
A. Yes, sir. So I received an undergraduate
degree in physics from Loyola University in New
Orleans. I was then accepted as a graduate student
at the California Institute of Technology, or Cal
Tech as it's commonly called. There, I received a
Master's Degree in Physics and then a Ph.D. or10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
Doctorate in Theoretical Physics in 1969.
I was then, for two years, a post-doctoral
-- what's called a post-doctoral fellow doing
research in physics at Cal Tech and at the
University of Washington. And then I started
teaching at the various faculty jobs. The first
one was at the University of Chicago, where I
taught for ten years.
Then in 1981, I moved my family to Florida
and took a position at the University of Florida.
Q. Okay. Anything else?
A. Well, a couple of other things. During
that time, I also had responded as a consultant at
Livermore National Weapons Laboratory in the early
80's -- the late 80's and early 90's where I was
assigned as a consultant working on the, what's
called the Star Wars Program, an antiballistic
missile system.
And then, of course, since 1993, I've been
using physics to analyze accidents.
Q. Understand. Do you have any type of
medical training such as, like, a medical degree or
anything of that sort?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You haven't gone through any type10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
of an RN program or anything of that -- DO program
or anything of that sort. Correct?
A. I haven't, no.
Q. Okay. And you are not here to render any
type of medical causation opinion. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Let's goes through this. I know I
provided -- you were provided a list of materials
from Dr. Minter's office. Do you have that
correspondence in front of you that is dated June
18th, 2021.
A. I do.
Q. Okay. What was provided to you by Dr.
Minter's office -- or, I mean, Mr. Minter's office?
A. At that time, I received an accident
report and photos of the accident of 4/3/19.
Q. Now, let me stop you on that line. You
received an accident report. So that would have
been the police report. Correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you received photos from April 3rd,
2019. Do you know how many photographs you
received?
A. Let's see. At that time I think I
received -- it looks like I have 12 different ones,10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
it looks like, from that day.
Q. Okay. And I assume those are photographs
of the Defendant's vehicle and my client's vehicle.
Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Are any of those photographs that -- now,
have you received any additional photos since that
initial correspondence?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Well, let's start with those
initial 12 photos that you received. Are any of
those photographs dated?
A. There is a date on one of them.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes. So there's one that has a date of
6/20/19, 2019 --
Q. Okay.
A. -- on the side. And then there's one --
there's another one that has the same date on it.
Q. Which vehicle is that of?
A. It's of the Plaintiff's vehicle -- your
vehicle -- your Plaintiff's vehicle.
Q. Okay. Are there any dates on any of the
vehicles that are the photographs of the
Defendant's vehicle?10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1s
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Do you know when those photographs were
taken?
A. No
Q. Has it ever been relayed to you by Mr.
Minter or his office who took those photographs and
when they may have taken them?
A. The only thing that was relayed to me was
that they were taken after the accident.
Q. Well, after the accident could be
yesterday.
A. Could be.
Q. And you agree with me that the first time
you saw these photographs was about two years and
three months after the accident. Correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. So do you have any idea what type
of timeframe these photographs were actually taken?
A. No.
Q. Would that be important to you in
formulating your opinion in any shape or form?
A. Only if it were possible that the vehicles
had been altered in the interim.
Q. Okay. And did you ever -- did you ever --
were you provided any maintenance records or repair10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
records for either of the vehicles?
A. Let's see. Yeah.
Q. Okay. What were you provided?
A. Let's see what I have here. Okay. So I
have a repair estimate dated -- well, there's a
cover letter, which has the date 4/18/19 on it, a
handwritten date. And then the repair estimate
itself -- the repair estimate itself is dated
4/22/19.
Q. For which vehicle?
A. For the Chevy Sonic.
Q. And. that is for my client's vehicle.
Correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What about for the Defendant's vehicle?
A. I think that's the only one I have for the
2019 accident.
Q. Okay. So let me make sure that we've got
this correct. You don't know when the photographs
of the Defendant's vehicle were taken. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You don't know if there was a damage
estimate or any type of evaluation performed after
this accident on the Defendant's vehicle. Correct?
A. That's correct.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
Q. And assuming I'm reading your notes
correct, which I assume I am, you have not
physically examined either of the vehicles that
were involved in this accident. Correct?
A. I have.
Q. You have or haven't? I apologize.
A. I've -- I've not physically examined any
of them.
Q. Okay. And you actually have not even
examined the scene of where the accident occurred
physically, like, with your own eyes. Correct?
A. I have done that.
Q. You did drive to the scene of the
accident?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. When did you do that?
A. Well, I know it was within the last month.
Q. Okay. All right. Did you check to see if
those conditions have changed at all since the
accident occurred?
A. Well, I -- I didn't do any check, you
know, besides -- no, I didn't -- I didn't do any --
I didn't go to any -- make any effort to see
whether or not the roads had been altered in any
way, no.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
Q. Okay. Now, I want to go through -- I
provided with you and attached to this deposition,
I had a subpoena duces tecum. Did you get a chance
to review that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I was provided by Counsel for the
Defendant a plethora of items last night that I'm
assuming yourself and he had sent to you. It looks
like I've got about two binders that are probably
five inches each thick. Does that sound accurate?
A. Could be, yeah, because I sent a lot of
documents.
Q. Now. In -- and did you help Counsel for
the Defense formulate a -- I had sent over Boecher
discovery obviously about experts. Did you help
them formulate those responses to those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, I noticed that in one of the
answers they asked you if you had ever been struck
or your testimony had ever been stricken. Do you
recall that question?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. You had testified that your
testimony's been stricken twice?
A. As far as I know, yes.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
Q. Okay. As far as you know. Is it possible
that it's been stricken many, many, many, many,
many, many more times than that?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Okay. Have you ever been allowed to
render the opinion, say within the past 15 years,
regarding causation?
A. Within the context of biomechanics, yes.
Q. Okay. Have you ever been able to render
an opinion regarding medical causation?
A. No.
Q. Whether someone can causally be -- that
you can causally relate their injuries to an
accident within the past 15 years?
A. So I've never been -- I've never offered
the opinion as to whether or not an injury actually
occurred.
Q. Okay. And you actually haven't been able
to afford the opinion whether someone could be
injured from an accident within the past 15 years.
Correct?
A. No, I don't think that's true.
Q. That is not true?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So if I read you a list of more10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
than -- I think right here I've got in front of me
at least more than ten cases where your testimony's
been struck where that was attempted. Would you
disagree?
A. No, there may be some judges that have
stricken that element of testimony. But there's
also appellate court rulings that say that it's
allowed.
Q. Well, there's -- actually the Mattek
opinion which says you are not allowed to do that.
A. Not allowed to say whether or not someone
sustained a permanent injury, that's right. But --
Q. Exactly, because you do not have medical
training. Correct?
A. I agree.
Q. Okay. All right. Well, we'll get to that
here in a second. Now, what percentage of your
business is done for the plaintiff and what
percentage is done for the defendant?
A. Okay. So as far as initial contacts goes,
someone calls me up and asks me to look at a case,
it's about 70 to 80 percent defense.
Q. Okay. So then that would be 20 to 30
percent for the plaintiff?
A. At that point, yes, sir.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
Q. Okay. And is the -- the sole person that
you work for right now is obviously the Florida
Accident and Biomechanical business. That's where
you are the sole employee?
A. Yes, sir. That's correct.
Q. And I assume 100 percent of that income is
derived from litigation work, purposes like this,
where a lawsuit has been filed?
A. It is.
Q. Okay. What is -- have you ever been
retained by Marion County in the past?
A. I think I have in criminal cases once or
twice, yes.
Q. Okay. In the past, say -- how many cases
do you review in an average year?
A. Oh, well, it varies from year to year.
These days, I would say I'm reviewing probably 50
to 75 cases a year these days.
Q. Okay. All right. So we were talking a
little bit ago about your testimony being struck.
What are the two cases you recall your testimony
being struck in?
A. Bryant vs. Buerman. That's B-R-Y-A-N-T
versus B-U-E-R-M-A-N. And Durgin, D-U-R-G-I-N.
Q. Okay. Do you recall your testimony being10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
struck in the Mattek vs. White matter?
A. Well, I gave testimony, but there was an
appellate court ruling after that, yes.
Q. Which basically ruled that your testimony
was inadmissible. Correct?
A. As far as saying whether or not someone
sustained a permanent injury, yes.
Q. How about in Bell vs. Hall, a 1988 case in
Alachua, do you recall your testimony being struck
in that case?
A. Part of my testimony, yes.
Q. Okay. How about in Burrow vs. Cheswick in
1997, a 15th Judicial Circuit, do you recall your
testimony being struck in that case?
A. No.
Q. Okay. How about Moynahan vs. Deloris in
'98, do you recall testimony being struck in that
case?
A. When you say "struck", it's not total
testimony. Right? You're saying limited. Right?
Isn't that correct?
Q. In that case, it looks like your testimony
was completely struck.
A. Really? I'm not aware of that.
Q. Okay. And I know they did -- there is a10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
specific ruling that anything regarding medical
causation or whether the accident can causally
relate
the injuries or the analogies that you used
to talk about the injuries were struck from giving
any type of opinion like that. Correct?
A. In that case, maybe that's true. I can't
deny it.
Q. Okay. Do you recall Kringle vs. State
Farm?
A. No.
Q. In !97?
A. No. I don't remember that.
Q. What about Mite vs. Burmen and Allstate?
Do you recall that case?
A. Which one?
Q. Mite vs. Burmen and Allstate?
A. No, sir. I don't remember that.
Q. What about McGowan vs. Samarage?
A. That sounds familiar.
Q. Okay. Do you recall if your testimony was
struck in that matter?
A. I don't, no.
Q. Okay. What about Taylor vs. Turner?
A. No.
A 2004 case?10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
A. No.
Q. You don't recall -- remember if you were
limited in that case that any type of analogy you
were trying to use to illustrate the force of the
impact where the -- they ruled that that was
improper testimony?
A. I don't recall that but that could very
well be the case.
Q. Okay. What about Yunello vs. Freeman? Do
you recall that case?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Was your testimony struck in that
case?
A. I don't know. All I can do is recognize
the style of the case. I don't know what happened.
Q. Okay. What about Fulmer vs. Brewer?
A. No, I don't know about that either.
Q. And here's a rather large one, I assume
you remember, and I'll -- I'll give it to you. You
just forgot to put this one under the answers. Do
you remember the Worley case?
A. That sounds familiar, too, yes.
Q. And that's one where your testimony was
struck. Correct?
A. Or limited. I don't know whether it was10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
struck. And when you say "struck", I don't -- are
you trying to say I wasn't allowed to testify at
all? I don't know.
Q. Well, I mean, if they ruled that your
testimony after the fact was completely
inadmissible, I would say that your testimony was
struck.
A. If that's what happened there, that would
be so, but I don't recall that having happened.
Q. Okay. Let's go through -- so we went
through the date that you were first contacted in
this case, you said you thought it was June 17th.
The first time you were sent anything was
June 18th and you said it's fair to assume that the
first time you reviewed anything or gave an opinion
as to anything regarding this case would have been
early July of 2021. Correct?
A. That's my best estimate, but I can't be
certain of that.
Q. Okay. But you're positive that prior to
June 25th, 2021 you would not have rendered any
opinions or done anything on this case. Correct?
A. No, I can't be sure of that either.
Q. Okay. Do you have any notes of any phone
calls with Mr. Minter or anyone in his office prior10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
to June 25th, 2021?
A. Not in my possession, no.
Q. Okay. Is that something that, in your
normal recordkeeping business, you would have kept
track of?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So if you call a client to give
them your opinion about the case, you do not charge
them for that?
A. Generally, I don't keep track of that
separately. No, I don't.
Q. Okay. But I know you testified at the
beginning of this deposition that it was safe to
assume that prior to June 25th, you had not
rendered any opinions on this case. Correct?
A. Well, I would have to amend that answer if
I did say that because I can't guarantee that
that's the truth.
Q. Okay. All right. Do you remember who
contacted you -- so you don't -- do you even know
the first time you spoke with Mr. Minter regarding
this case?
A. No, sir. I didn't keep a record of that.
Q. Okay. But the first time you formally
wrote an opinion would have been in August of 2021?10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
A. No, I would have given opinions prior to
that.
Q. Okay. What happened in August of '21
then?
A. That's when I submitted -- that's when I
submitted my first invoice.
Q. Okay. Do we know -- is there anywhere --
do you have anywhere in your records that would
show -- I know I've already asked this, so the
answer's going to be no.
But is there anything that is going to
show when the first opinion would have been
rendered?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Okay. What is your understanding of what
your assignment was in this case?
A. My understanding of my assignment was to,
first of all, perform an accident reconstruction of
the accident and then to use the results of that
reconstruction to examine the forces of impact
involved in the accident on the Plaintiff, in
particular, and to assess the likelihood of the
preface of mechanisms for serious injury of the
accident.
Q. Okay. And you would agree with me that10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
the mechanism of serious injury, that is going to
get into medical causation. Correct?
A. No, it's not.
Q. Okay. So let me get this correct. I'm
going to break it down into three brackets here.
It sounds like you got a three-prong area of what
you were retained to do, and correct me if I'm
wrong.
You were, one, retained to determine the
change in velocity to Ms. Pidherney of what she
experienced during the crash or the delta-v.
Correct?
A. Well, that's part of the -- that's part of
the accident reconstruction analysis. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. The second part, if I'm digesting
what you said correctly, you are retained to
determine the equivalent ways of reproducing the
force of impact on Ms. Pidherney?
A. That's one of the other elements that I
did as far as analyzing the forces of impact onto
the occupants, yes.
Q. Okay. And then the third branch I would
break down into in what you just said is you were
hired to basically give an opinion as to analogous
ways of reproducing the force of impact on Ms.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
Pidherney. Correct?
A. That's another -- that's another element
that was part of all of that analysis, yes.
Q. Okay. All right. And you would agree
with me that those last two elements, basically the
equivalent ways of reproducing the force and the
analogous ways of the force on Ms. Pidherney, those
two elements of your testimony have been struck in
almost every single case I just read to you.
Correct?
A. Well, you found ten cases,out of a
thousand where some judges made some ruling that --
that limited what I could talk about. But you --
you're -- you're completely neglecting the
existence of recent appellate court rulings which
say I can talk about these things.
Q. —
A. And the appellate court rulings that we're
talking about come after those ones that you cited
that -- where I was limited.
Q. Dr. Ipser, I just pulled 10. I could
probably pull another 45.
A. Go ahead. Go ahead and pull them and
they'll all -- they'll all disagree with the
appellate court rulings, too --10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
Q. Okay.
A. -- that came subsequent.
Q. All right. So let's keep going through
the list of stuff that you received from Mr.
Minter's office.
You received the photographs, the accident
report, you said 12 photographs, then you received
the property damage information from John Neeser
2019 accident. What is that?
I don't see that in the documentation that
Mr. Minter provided to me, but maybe I'm not seeing
it correctly.
A. So there's a document, which it has a
handwritten sheet, cover sheet.
Q. That is an estimate from my client's
vehicle., Correct?
A. It is, yes.
Q. Okay. All right. Then you have an
accident report from a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on November 21st, 2017. Correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Did that accident report help you
or assist you in formulating your opinions in
regarding -- in regards to the April 3rd, 2019
accident?10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
A. No.
Q. Okay. Did that -- did that assist you in
any shape or form in formulating your opinions?
A. No.
Q. Then why was that provided to you?
A. I don't know. It's just part of the
record of what's happened to the lady, I guess, in
the past. I don't know.
Q. But you would agree with me, like you
said, you have absolutely no medical training.
Correct?
A. I agree.
Q. Okay. So other than to ignite your
opinion about this lady's history, is there any
reason why Mr. Minter's office would provide this
to you?
A. I -- I don't know why this was provided.
It just could be an element of completeness. I
don't know.
Q. Okay. But just so that we're all clear
for the record: This accident report from November
21st, 2017 did not aid or assist you in arriving at
your opinion in any shape or form. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. In fact, you, yourself, would think that10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
this document is absolutely irrelevant to your
opinion. Correct?
A. Well, it's not irrelevant in the sense of
what's happened to this lady in her past life. But
that's all.
Q. Well, it's part of her history, but you're
not qualified to render an opinion regarding her
history. Correct?
A. I don't know what you mean by that.
Q. Well, in regards to a reason why a lawsuit
could be brought, medical causation, you are not
qualified to render any opinion about that.
A. I'm not offering a medical cause. My
analysis of that accident, if I did analyze it and
use it in any way, wouldn't -- wouldn't -- wouldn't
be a medical issue.
Q. Okay. Well, in determining --
A. Excuse me. I haven't finished my answer.
It would just be an element of what her
history is.
Q. In determining the delta-v, which are the
forces you're trying to say were exerted upon Ms.
Pidherney, does a prior accident in 2017 assist or
alter your opinion in any shape or form?
A. No, sir. No.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
Q. Okay.
(Whereupon, Mr. William A. Harris entered
the zoom conference room.)
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. All right. You were provided property
damage records from Geico from a 2017 accident.
Correct?
A. I was.
Q. Did those records assist or help you in
arriving at your opinion in this case in any shape
or form?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You received Number 7, an e-mail
from Geico explaining certain things. Did that
help or assist you in arriving at your opinions in
any way?
A. No.
Q. All right. And then you received the
deposition transcript of Ms. Pidherney. Correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Have you, yourself, as we sit here
today, Dr. Ipser, is there anything else you have
reviewed apart from these eight items from Mr.
Minter's office?
A. I think we've already mentioned the10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
additional photos that was sent subsequently.
Q. How many additional photos were sent to
you?
A. Looks like 13.
Q. Okay. And are those photographs of the
Defendant's vehicle?
A. They are.
Q. Okay. Do you know who took those
photographs?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know when those photographs were
taken?
A. I do not.
Q. Okay. Do you know what date those 13
photographs were provided to you?
A. They were provided to me within the last
week.
Q. Do you know if those are even the
photographs of the Defendant's vehicle that was
actually involved in this accident?
A. Well, I can't prove that they are, but I
am told that they are.
Q. Was the first time you reviewed any
photographs of the Defendant's vehicle within this
past -- was it the first time -- was it within this10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
past week?
A. I'm sorry. Repeat the question, please.
Q. Was the first time you had reviewed any
photographs of the Defendant's alleged vehicle that
was involved in this accident, was it done within
this past week?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So you had had prior photographs
before back in -- when you -- in June of 2021?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, have you spoken with any of
the witnesses or individuals that were involved in
this accident?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who?
A. I spoke with the driver of the Defendant's
vehicle.
Q. Okay. And when did that occur?
A. That occurred when I visited the scene
within the last month.
Q. Okay. That was within the past month?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you did it the same day you visited the
A. Exactly.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
Q. What day was that?
A. I'm trying to find the date. I don't seem
to have it written down here.
Q. I assume you'd have it in your electronic
calendar because all of us carry that.
A. Oh, really?
Q. I would assume you do, Dr. Ipser. You are
quite the technologically advanced human being. So
I would --
A. I still -- I still use hardcopies, as you
see here, handwritten copies. So I'm looking at my
calendar, which is handwritten, and, I'm sorry, I
don't seem to be able to find anything written in
here that's about the exact date of that. Let me
look.
But I do know it was within the last
month. That's about the best I can tell you. rT
can probably track it down with some other
documents that I could go and see. But as far as
what I have with me at the moment, I don't think I
can tell you the exact date.
Q. Okay. Did you charge the Defense Counsel
for that drive to examine the scene?
A. No.
Q. Okay. That's just part of your flat fee?10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
A. Well, I would charge for that. I haven't
given -- haven't made up an invoice that includes
that yet.
Q. Okay. But you plan on charging that.
Correct?
A. Yeah, I'll charge for that.
Q. Okay. Is there any way of looking on your
Outlook calendar or anything there in front of you
and finding out which date you went and travelled
to the scene?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Okay. When do you plan on submitting the
bill to Mr. Minter?
A. T don't know. I haven't decided that yet.
Q. Okay. Had -- had you formulated your
opinion or spoken --
A. Excuse me. I -- I found it.
Q. Okay. When was that?
A. I apologize. I found it in my handwritten
calendar.
Q. Okay.
A. It was July 23rd.
Q. Okay. Do you know if you had already
formulated your opinions prior to July 23rd, 2021?
A. Yes. The bulk of my opinions had been10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
formulated before then.
Q. Okay. Did your -- did your conversation
with the Defendant or -- well, the Defendant
driver. I guess, he's not the Defendant. The
driver of the Defendant's vehicle, how long did
that conversation consist?
A. I think we actually spoke with each other
for about ten minutes.
Q. Okay. Did he show you any photographs?
Was this in person? Or was it over the phone?
A. It was in person.
Q. Okay. And did you speak with anyone else
that's a representative of the Defense?
A. Mr. Minter.
Q. Okay. But anybody else over at Marion
County?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And what did that conversation
consist of with the driver?
A. My memory is that it just was a
conversation in which I asked him to summarize for
me what he remembered about the accident.
Q. Okay. Do you remember what he told you?
A. Yes, sir, that he was behind the -- behind
the Plain -- behind the Plaintiff in the left lane10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
going westbound on 17th, I think it was. And
traffic came to a stop because of the light, which
is about a block up.
Near the -- the position at which the
Plaintiff came to rest was near the entrance to a
mall where there's a couple of restaurants
including a Long Horn, and he stopped behind her.
And then after he had come to a complete
stop, for some reason he moved forward and impacted
the rear of her vehicle.
Q. Did he tell you how fast he was going when
he rear-ended her?
A. He felt that he was going less than five
miles an hour.
Q. Okay. Did he tell test -- did he tell you
that she was at a complete stop when she was hit?
A. He said that she was at a complete stop
before she moved forward again. I don't remember
whether he told me she was at a complete stop the
moment she was struck. I don't remember that.
Q. Would that make a difference?
A. No.
Q. So whether her car was at a complete stop
or moving wouldn't alter your opinion in any shape
or form?10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
A. No, it wouldn't.
Q. Okay. Now, I see you did do, we'll call
it a written report, but it's more like -- it looks
like it's seven pages of handwritten notes which
are your equations of this case. Correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the only written report that you
have completed in regards to this,accident?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. There isn't any other reports or
anything that you have done?
A. No other written documents, no, that I
created.
Q. Okay. So if I'm correct, the documents
listed in a June 18th, 2021 correspondence from Mr.
Minter, those eight items, in addition to 13
photographs that were later provided to you, you
say within the past month, is that everything
that's been provided to you by Mr. Minter?
A. As far as evidence related to this case, I
think that's true.
Q. Okay. Now, I'm a little bit ata
disadvantage here, Dr. Ipser, because we are not
doing this in person and we are doing this by Zoom.
A. Yes, sir.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
Q. Is there a way that you -- do you have all
of those documents with you?
A. I have them with me, yes.
Q. Is there a way that you can either e-mail
those to myself and Mr. Minter? Or -- or any way
to get me all of that stuff?
A. You mean while we're doing the depo?
Q. No, after the depo.
A. Yeah, I'm sure that we can make sure that
you get every one of those documents, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. So the -- all the documents that were sent
to me by Mr. Minter and my handwritten
calculations?
Q. Yeah.
A. All the --
Q. Now, the rest of the documentation that
you provided to me that you've relied on, I've got
those in response to the subpoena. That's about a
binder full of material. I don't need that again.
A. Yeah, so I want to make sure I understand
what you need.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Let me summarize to see whether I'm
correct. So you want everything that was sent to10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
me in connection with that June 18 letter. You
want the subsequent photos that were sent to me.
You want my handwritten calculations and anything
else presumably that I created that I used in doing
my analysis.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Is that correct?
Q. That is correct.
A. But now -- but I've already -- we've
already sent you though a whole collection of
studies and stuff like that. You don't need those?
Q. No. The stuff that is the studies and the
articles and all that, that you've prepared, I
don't need any of that.
A. Okay.
Q. I just want the stuff -- everything that
was sent to you by Mr. Minter's office and then,
yes, I've got your handwritten notes. So the
handwritten notes and anything that you may have
done for calculations. You are correct, that is
it.
A. Okay. What about the invoices? Do you
want those, too?
Q. Yes, I do want those because, obviously,
there's -- I assume there's going to be a new one10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
where you did the site visit and everything from in
talking to the Marion County driver. Correct?
A. There will be at some point, yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Have you been provided any other
supplemental information apart from what we've just
discussed?
A. I don't think so.
Q. All right. And, Dr. Ipser, have you
formulated your opinions at this point?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And do you anticipate doing any
additional work on this matter?
A. No, sir, not at this point, not unless I'm
asked to do so, of course.
Q. Okay. Were you assisted by anyone in
arriving at your opinions?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Well, what are your opinions in
regards to this accident, sir?
A. Okay. So my first opinion is that the
closing velocity or relative velocity of the
accident, that is the difference between the speeds
of the vehicles at the moment of impact, was less
than in the order of -- well, I have 7.1 miles an
hour written down here. We can round that off.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
Now, I'll just give you the numbers that
are written down. So the closing speed or relative
velocity was less than 7.1 miles per hour.
Q. Okay. And then next you've got, I assume,
the delta-v calculation. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. What's that?
A. So my best estimate of the delta-v is less
than of the order of 4.5 miles an hour.
Q. All right. Now, I want to stop you right
there real quick. How did you arrive -- or what
did you review to calculate the delta-v?
A. I reviewed the photographs that were sent
to me, the data that I collected on the physical
characteristics of the vehicles.
Q. Now, where do you get that, the physical
characteristics? Now, when you say that, let me --
let me break it down for the layman's terms. What
you're talking about is things like the weight, the
wheelbase, the crush, the stiffness coefficients of
the vehicle. Where are you obtaining this
information from?
A. Okay. I obtained that from an entity
called Expert Auto Stats.
Q. Is that also the Society of Automotive10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
Engineers?
A. No, that's a separate entity. Some of the
information is obtained from them also.
Q. Okay. So you're not obtaining this from
the actual vehicles that were involved in the
accident. You're doing it on a generalized view of
that make and model for that year. Correct?
A. I'm not sure I understand what you're
saying. What I'm doing is -- let me say what I'm
doing is I'm collecting data on those particular
vehicles, yes.
Q. Understand. But you're doing a
generalized for that vehicle. It's that vehicle as
a whole as it is brand new. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. It doesn't take into account what
type of stuff my client may have had in her car,
any modifications she may have made to the car, any
aftermarket parts she may have put on the car,
anything of that sort. You're not taking any of
that into account. Correct?
A. I'm allowing for some of the con -- for
some extra -- I'm allowing for some extra weight
involving the contents of the vehicle. That's only
an estimate, yes.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
Q. Now, you would agree with me the accuracy
of your results, they depend on the quality of the
information that was provided to you. Correct?
A. of course.
Q. Okay. And you, yourself, already
testified you have two photographs of my client's
vehicle. Correct?
A. Two?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. No, I have more than that.
Q. Okay. How many do you have?
Well, let me ask you this: You didn't go
out, yourself, and physically examine my client's
vehicle. Correct?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. In fact, you've never done that. You've
never gone out and taken physical measurements or
weights or examined her vehicle. Correct?
A. I have not examined her vehicle.
Q. In fact, the photographs that you have of
her vehicle don't even show you the entire car. Do
they?
A. They show the -- no, they focus on the
region of impact.
Q. Exactly. So they look at the back bumper.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
Correct?
A. They do.
Q. So if she has aftermarket wheels that are
heavier, or if she has a cattle guard on the front,
or if she's hauling a cow in her front seat, you
have no idea. Correct?
A. It's true that I don't know the exact
weight of her vehicle. I've already said that. So
I have to -- I have to -- there is some uncertainly
with the exact weight that the vehicle was at the
impact. I agree.
Q. And. you would agree with me that basically
leads to a rate of error or a percentage of error
that could be accounted for. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And what would that percentage of
error -- what is the percentage of error?
A. The error for information like this is in
the order of ten percent.
Q. I'm sorry. What?
A. For example -- I would say of the order of
ten percent. For example, the weight of the
vehicle could be -- I could be off by a few hundred
pounds on the total weight of the vehicle.
Q. Would you agree with me that you've10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
testified in the past that when you're relying
solely on the photographs of the vehicle, you have
not examined them yourself, the rate of error could
be all the way up to 25 percent?
A. That would depend upon the circumstance.
But in this case, because the way in which the
calculation is done -- in fact, I'm confident that
my upper estimate for the change of velocity of the
vehicle is very accurate, the upper limit.
Q. Okay. And you can get that just by merely
one photograph of the bumper and nothing on the
rest of the car?
A. I can get that through the photographs of
the region of contact, yes.
Q. Okay. Did you have --
A. Along with -- along with, of course, an
estimate of the total weight that's involved, which
does involve some error.
Q. Did you happen to examine the deposition
transcript of Ms. Pidherney?
A. Yes.
Q. And anywhere in there was she ever asked a
question whether she had anything in her vehicle or
if there was any modifications made to her vehicle?
A. No.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
Q. Would that be important to you?
A. Well, if there are any modifications or
any extreme change in weight, more than a few
hundred pounds, that would cause an additional
error. I agree.
Q. How much of an error would that cause?
A. It would depend upon how much additional
weight is -- is involved.
Q. Okay. Do you know how much Ms. Pidherney
weighed?
A. I don't think I have her exact weight. I
had to allow for some weight there. There's an
uncertainty in her weight. I agree.
Q. So is it possible, without knowing all the
specifics about the vehicle, whether it had any
aftermarket parts and what the vehicle was actually
carrying at the time of the accident, that that
rate of error could actually climb up to 25
percent. Correct?
A. I don't think so, not in this case because
of the nature of the event and the situation that
there's no crush damage. There's no crush damage
on the surfaces of contact of the vehicle of any
significance, at least according to the
photographs. And I'm allowing for that surface to10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
have been pushed in as far as it could be without
showing any permanent crush damage. So...
Q. Do you remember --
A. So I think that my upper limit, my
worst-case scenario upper limit I think is fairly
accurate.
Q. Okay. Do you recall providing deposition
testimony in the Durgin matter?
A. I don't remember what it was, no.
Q. Okay. And if you had testified in that
matter, which facts are very similar to this one
here in our case, with a similar delta-v, similar
-- similar sets of photographs, that your rate of
error would have been upwards of 25 percent, would
you disagree with that?
A. That was a different accident in which the
photographs -- the estimate of the crush damage was
more difficult to perform there because of the way
in which the vehicle was damaged.
Q. Would you agree with me that the
photographs you have of my client's vehicle do not
display the entire back end of her vehicle.
Correct?
A. They display everything except a few
inches on the extreme right corner.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
S1
Q. Okay. Do they look up underneath the
bumper at all?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Do they look at the black clips
that hold the bumper at all?
A. No, sir. What they do is they -- they
show the surface of contact on the vehicle and
that's what one's supposed to analyze in doing this
type of analysis.
Q. Okay. Let's go to the next line of your
opinion. What's that?
A. That the acceleration loading on the
vehicle, in my opinion, was less than of the order
of 1571 Gs.
Q. Okay. Now, did the witnesses' statements,
meaning the Defendant driver and my client's
statements, did they factor into your calculation
in any shape or form?
A. No.
Q. Okay. How about -- did you notice any
crush damage on the Defendant's vehicle?
A. So, as I said, there's no evidence of any
permanent crush damage to the structure. There's
-- there's a possibility of some scratching, but
there's no permanent crush damage of any10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
significance, at least not in the photographs that
I have.
Q. But you would agree with me, that -- that,
the same as the Plaintiff's vehicle, you, yourself,
had not physically examined the Defendant's vehicle
in this accident. Correct?
A. I have -- I have -- that's true, but that
doesn't affect my opinion.
Q. Okay. But you would agree with me as well
that you don't know when the photog
Preview
Filing # 134424203 E-Filed 09/13/2021 09:01:48 AM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA MARSHA SUE PIDHERNEY, PLAINTIFF, Vs. CASE NUMBER: 2019-CA-2760 MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT. / DEPOSITION OF: JAMES R. IPSER, .PH.D. DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 2021 TIME: 1:02 P.M. - 2:43 P.M. PLACE: VIDEOCONFERENCING VIA ZOOM STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY: BETH BUNN, RPR, FPR REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL REPORTER NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE JOY HAYES COURT REPORTING, LLC 407 COURTHOUSE SQUARE INVERNESS, FL 34450 (352) 726-4451 OFFICE@JOYHAYESCOURTREPORTING.COM Electronically Filed Marion Case # 19CA002760AX 09/13/2021 09:01:48 AM10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCE 8S: D. OF: GRAHAM ANDERSON, ESQUIRE Bogin, Munns & Munns, P.A. 1390 North Hancock Road Suite 201 Clermont, Florida 34711-5978 352-243-8981 Ganderson@boginmunns.com APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF MATTHEW G. MINTER, ESQUIRE OF: County Attorney Office, Marion County 601 SE 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690 352-438-2330 Matthew.minter@marioncountyfl.org APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT WILLIAM A. HARRIS, ESQUIRE OF: Marion County Board of County Commissioners 601 SE 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690 352-438-2330 William.harris@marionfl.org APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. IPSER, PH.D. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ANDERSON........... 05 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MINTER...........6.. 99 CERTIFICATE OF OATH... ccc eee eee eee eee eee eee ewes 102 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT..........-- 103 ERRATA SHEET... . cee eee eee eee eee ee ee ee eee eee rene 104 NOTIFICATION LETTER. 1... cc ee ee ee ee wee ee eee 105 INDEX OF EXHIBITS (NONE MARKED) STIPULATIONS It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the Counsel for the respective parties and the deponent that the reading and signing of the deposition transcript be reserved.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS KR RAKE THE COURT REPORTER: The attorneys participating in this deposition acknowledge that I, the court reporter, am not present with the witness and that I will be reporting the proceedings and administering the oath remotely. This arrangement is pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court Administrative Order No. AOSC-20-16 (and extended by AOSC-20-17). The parties and their Counsel consent to this arrangement and waive any objections to this manner of reporting. Please indicate your agreement by stating your name and your agreement on the record. MR. ANDERSON: Graham Anderson, on behalf of the Plaintiff and I agree. MR. MINTER: Matthew Minter, for the Defendant, and I agree. THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, will you raise your right hand for me, please. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this cause is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 truth? THE WITNESS: I do. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ANDERSON: Q. All right. Dr. Ipser, could you please state your full name for the record. A. James Reid Ipser. That's I-P, as in Paul S-E-R. Q. And what is your current business address, sir? A. 2516 Northwest 22nd Drive, Gainesville, Florida 32605. Q. Who is that -- who is your employer? A. I'm self-employed. Q. Okay. And is that The TASA Group? A. No, sir. It's -- I have a corporation called The Florida Accident and Biomechanics Institute. Q. Okay. And I assume you are the sole employee of that business? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the nature of that business, Dr. Ipser? A. Expert witness work involving accident reconstruction and biomechanical physics.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. How -- how long do you have -- when you say "biomechanical physics", you don't mean biomedical physics. Correct? A. I do not. Q. Okay. And how long have you done that work as an expert? A. Since 1993. Q. Okay. Tell me what are your duties -- what are your duties as the sole principal of this business? A. To accept assignments when they are offered and to carry out my analyses and calculations. Q. Okay. What's your hourly rates for doing this? A. Well, for my workup on a case, doing calculations, collecting documents, reading documents, et cetera, $275 an hour. The only different component is expert witness testimony, whether at deposition or at trial. For that testimony itself, and that only, is $425 an hour. Q. Okay. And so the -- the document that was provided to me by Counsel in this matter lists your standard deposition rate as $415 dollars per hour. Has it gone up since this was provided to me?10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Well, I have $425. That's what I understand. Q. But I'm looking at a document dated June llth, 2021 from your office, sir, that says your hourly deposition rate is $415 an hour. A. Well, it should be $425. Q. Okay. And then it says your court dep -- or court testimony rate at $565 an hour. Does that sound correct? A. That has to do with TASA. When I'm -- I've been retain -- I've been retained actually through TASA on this case. Q. Okay. A. So there's a different rate because they -- they get some of the money. Q. Okay. So TASA is basically, like, an independent contracting company that filters you out to people? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. And how long have you been working with TASA to get expert work? A. Oh, since the 90's. Q. And I'm assuming this is a referral network that you have to buy into to basically get work?10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No, you don't buy -- I don't buy into it, no. Q. Okay. But they do take a cut of the hourly rate? A. According to the hourly rate that they produced, yes, sir. Q. Okay. So in this case, what is the percentage they get? A. Okay. So I see what you're saying now. That $415, that must be their rate -- that must be their total hourly rate for workup on a case. I would get $275 an hour of that amount. Q. Okay. So they're charging almost double the rate for you to -- to workup a file? A. Well, it's -- double the rate would be $550, sow.. Q. It would be $550. So they're charging you about 75 percent? A. I haven't figured out the percentage, but that sounds about right, yes. Q. Okay. And in this case you were contacted not by Mr. Minter's office, correct? Because I'm assuming they contacted The TASA Group who then reached out to you? A. I believe that's correct.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. Do you know which date you were actually contacted in this case? A. No. I -- I think it was around -- it was the middle of July. I don't know the exact date. Q. Well, I have a letter dated June 17th, 2021 for the retention of yourself. Do you know if that's when you were retained? Or do you know if that's when TASA was retained? A. I think I was retained on June 18th, I think. Q. Okay. So you were retained on June 18th of '21. And .do you know when you were first sent materials to review in this file? A. It would have been on that date. I have a cover letter dated June 18th. Q. Okay. Do you know if those records were sent to you standard mail? Or were faxed to you? Or e-mailed to you? A. I think they were e-mailed. Q. Okay. When did you actually review those records? Did you mark which date you did that? A. No. Q. Okay. Did you do it that day? Or did you do it a week later? A. I don't know.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 Q. Okay. Is it possible you did do it a week or two later? A. It's possible. But I -- my normal way of acting would be to at least look at the materials as soon as they come in; perhaps, not do any professional analyses, but to look at them. I can't tell you for sure. Q. Okay. Do you know, by any chance, when the first time you relayed to Counsel any of your opinions? A. I don't have an exact date on that. I think it would have been before July lst though. Q. Okay. So you're positive though it was not June 18th, correct, the day that you received the materials? A. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's true. Q. Okay. So it was sometime between June 18th and July list? A. When I first started relaying opinions, yes. Q. Okay. Do you know if it -- did you make any notes of the date you had that conversation? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Did you bill them for that conversation?10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 A. I've only billed once so far. Q. When was that? For what date? A. Let me check. I have an invoice dated August 4th, 2021. Q. Okay. So is it safe to assume that you may not have completed your opinions all the way "til then August of 21? A. It's possible. Q. Okay. Is there any chance that your opinions were 100 percent final within June 18th and say June 25th of 2021? A. I don't think so. No. Q. Okay. All right. Let's go through a little bit of your educational history, Dr. Ipser. I know you and I have spoken before, but I'll -- just for purposes of this case, we'll go through that. What -- could you list out your educational history for me? A. Yes, sir. So I received an undergraduate degree in physics from Loyola University in New Orleans. I was then accepted as a graduate student at the California Institute of Technology, or Cal Tech as it's commonly called. There, I received a Master's Degree in Physics and then a Ph.D. or10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 Doctorate in Theoretical Physics in 1969. I was then, for two years, a post-doctoral -- what's called a post-doctoral fellow doing research in physics at Cal Tech and at the University of Washington. And then I started teaching at the various faculty jobs. The first one was at the University of Chicago, where I taught for ten years. Then in 1981, I moved my family to Florida and took a position at the University of Florida. Q. Okay. Anything else? A. Well, a couple of other things. During that time, I also had responded as a consultant at Livermore National Weapons Laboratory in the early 80's -- the late 80's and early 90's where I was assigned as a consultant working on the, what's called the Star Wars Program, an antiballistic missile system. And then, of course, since 1993, I've been using physics to analyze accidents. Q. Understand. Do you have any type of medical training such as, like, a medical degree or anything of that sort? A. No. Q. Okay. You haven't gone through any type10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 of an RN program or anything of that -- DO program or anything of that sort. Correct? A. I haven't, no. Q. Okay. And you are not here to render any type of medical causation opinion. Correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Let's goes through this. I know I provided -- you were provided a list of materials from Dr. Minter's office. Do you have that correspondence in front of you that is dated June 18th, 2021. A. I do. Q. Okay. What was provided to you by Dr. Minter's office -- or, I mean, Mr. Minter's office? A. At that time, I received an accident report and photos of the accident of 4/3/19. Q. Now, let me stop you on that line. You received an accident report. So that would have been the police report. Correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you received photos from April 3rd, 2019. Do you know how many photographs you received? A. Let's see. At that time I think I received -- it looks like I have 12 different ones,10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 it looks like, from that day. Q. Okay. And I assume those are photographs of the Defendant's vehicle and my client's vehicle. Correct? A. Correct. Q. Are any of those photographs that -- now, have you received any additional photos since that initial correspondence? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Well, let's start with those initial 12 photos that you received. Are any of those photographs dated? A. There is a date on one of them. Q. Okay. A. Yes. So there's one that has a date of 6/20/19, 2019 -- Q. Okay. A. -- on the side. And then there's one -- there's another one that has the same date on it. Q. Which vehicle is that of? A. It's of the Plaintiff's vehicle -- your vehicle -- your Plaintiff's vehicle. Q. Okay. Are there any dates on any of the vehicles that are the photographs of the Defendant's vehicle?10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1s A. No, I don't think so. Q. Do you know when those photographs were taken? A. No Q. Has it ever been relayed to you by Mr. Minter or his office who took those photographs and when they may have taken them? A. The only thing that was relayed to me was that they were taken after the accident. Q. Well, after the accident could be yesterday. A. Could be. Q. And you agree with me that the first time you saw these photographs was about two years and three months after the accident. Correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. So do you have any idea what type of timeframe these photographs were actually taken? A. No. Q. Would that be important to you in formulating your opinion in any shape or form? A. Only if it were possible that the vehicles had been altered in the interim. Q. Okay. And did you ever -- did you ever -- were you provided any maintenance records or repair10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 records for either of the vehicles? A. Let's see. Yeah. Q. Okay. What were you provided? A. Let's see what I have here. Okay. So I have a repair estimate dated -- well, there's a cover letter, which has the date 4/18/19 on it, a handwritten date. And then the repair estimate itself -- the repair estimate itself is dated 4/22/19. Q. For which vehicle? A. For the Chevy Sonic. Q. And. that is for my client's vehicle. Correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. What about for the Defendant's vehicle? A. I think that's the only one I have for the 2019 accident. Q. Okay. So let me make sure that we've got this correct. You don't know when the photographs of the Defendant's vehicle were taken. Correct? A. That's correct. Q. You don't know if there was a damage estimate or any type of evaluation performed after this accident on the Defendant's vehicle. Correct? A. That's correct.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 Q. And assuming I'm reading your notes correct, which I assume I am, you have not physically examined either of the vehicles that were involved in this accident. Correct? A. I have. Q. You have or haven't? I apologize. A. I've -- I've not physically examined any of them. Q. Okay. And you actually have not even examined the scene of where the accident occurred physically, like, with your own eyes. Correct? A. I have done that. Q. You did drive to the scene of the accident? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. When did you do that? A. Well, I know it was within the last month. Q. Okay. All right. Did you check to see if those conditions have changed at all since the accident occurred? A. Well, I -- I didn't do any check, you know, besides -- no, I didn't -- I didn't do any -- I didn't go to any -- make any effort to see whether or not the roads had been altered in any way, no.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 Q. Okay. Now, I want to go through -- I provided with you and attached to this deposition, I had a subpoena duces tecum. Did you get a chance to review that? A. Yes, sir. Q. I was provided by Counsel for the Defendant a plethora of items last night that I'm assuming yourself and he had sent to you. It looks like I've got about two binders that are probably five inches each thick. Does that sound accurate? A. Could be, yeah, because I sent a lot of documents. Q. Now. In -- and did you help Counsel for the Defense formulate a -- I had sent over Boecher discovery obviously about experts. Did you help them formulate those responses to those questions? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, I noticed that in one of the answers they asked you if you had ever been struck or your testimony had ever been stricken. Do you recall that question? A. I do. Q. Okay. You had testified that your testimony's been stricken twice? A. As far as I know, yes.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 Q. Okay. As far as you know. Is it possible that it's been stricken many, many, many, many, many, many more times than that? A. No, I don't think so. Q. Okay. Have you ever been allowed to render the opinion, say within the past 15 years, regarding causation? A. Within the context of biomechanics, yes. Q. Okay. Have you ever been able to render an opinion regarding medical causation? A. No. Q. Whether someone can causally be -- that you can causally relate their injuries to an accident within the past 15 years? A. So I've never been -- I've never offered the opinion as to whether or not an injury actually occurred. Q. Okay. And you actually haven't been able to afford the opinion whether someone could be injured from an accident within the past 15 years. Correct? A. No, I don't think that's true. Q. That is not true? A. No. Q. Okay. So if I read you a list of more10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 than -- I think right here I've got in front of me at least more than ten cases where your testimony's been struck where that was attempted. Would you disagree? A. No, there may be some judges that have stricken that element of testimony. But there's also appellate court rulings that say that it's allowed. Q. Well, there's -- actually the Mattek opinion which says you are not allowed to do that. A. Not allowed to say whether or not someone sustained a permanent injury, that's right. But -- Q. Exactly, because you do not have medical training. Correct? A. I agree. Q. Okay. All right. Well, we'll get to that here in a second. Now, what percentage of your business is done for the plaintiff and what percentage is done for the defendant? A. Okay. So as far as initial contacts goes, someone calls me up and asks me to look at a case, it's about 70 to 80 percent defense. Q. Okay. So then that would be 20 to 30 percent for the plaintiff? A. At that point, yes, sir.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 Q. Okay. And is the -- the sole person that you work for right now is obviously the Florida Accident and Biomechanical business. That's where you are the sole employee? A. Yes, sir. That's correct. Q. And I assume 100 percent of that income is derived from litigation work, purposes like this, where a lawsuit has been filed? A. It is. Q. Okay. What is -- have you ever been retained by Marion County in the past? A. I think I have in criminal cases once or twice, yes. Q. Okay. In the past, say -- how many cases do you review in an average year? A. Oh, well, it varies from year to year. These days, I would say I'm reviewing probably 50 to 75 cases a year these days. Q. Okay. All right. So we were talking a little bit ago about your testimony being struck. What are the two cases you recall your testimony being struck in? A. Bryant vs. Buerman. That's B-R-Y-A-N-T versus B-U-E-R-M-A-N. And Durgin, D-U-R-G-I-N. Q. Okay. Do you recall your testimony being10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 struck in the Mattek vs. White matter? A. Well, I gave testimony, but there was an appellate court ruling after that, yes. Q. Which basically ruled that your testimony was inadmissible. Correct? A. As far as saying whether or not someone sustained a permanent injury, yes. Q. How about in Bell vs. Hall, a 1988 case in Alachua, do you recall your testimony being struck in that case? A. Part of my testimony, yes. Q. Okay. How about in Burrow vs. Cheswick in 1997, a 15th Judicial Circuit, do you recall your testimony being struck in that case? A. No. Q. Okay. How about Moynahan vs. Deloris in '98, do you recall testimony being struck in that case? A. When you say "struck", it's not total testimony. Right? You're saying limited. Right? Isn't that correct? Q. In that case, it looks like your testimony was completely struck. A. Really? I'm not aware of that. Q. Okay. And I know they did -- there is a10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 specific ruling that anything regarding medical causation or whether the accident can causally relate the injuries or the analogies that you used to talk about the injuries were struck from giving any type of opinion like that. Correct? A. In that case, maybe that's true. I can't deny it. Q. Okay. Do you recall Kringle vs. State Farm? A. No. Q. In !97? A. No. I don't remember that. Q. What about Mite vs. Burmen and Allstate? Do you recall that case? A. Which one? Q. Mite vs. Burmen and Allstate? A. No, sir. I don't remember that. Q. What about McGowan vs. Samarage? A. That sounds familiar. Q. Okay. Do you recall if your testimony was struck in that matter? A. I don't, no. Q. Okay. What about Taylor vs. Turner? A. No. A 2004 case?10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 A. No. Q. You don't recall -- remember if you were limited in that case that any type of analogy you were trying to use to illustrate the force of the impact where the -- they ruled that that was improper testimony? A. I don't recall that but that could very well be the case. Q. Okay. What about Yunello vs. Freeman? Do you recall that case? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Was your testimony struck in that case? A. I don't know. All I can do is recognize the style of the case. I don't know what happened. Q. Okay. What about Fulmer vs. Brewer? A. No, I don't know about that either. Q. And here's a rather large one, I assume you remember, and I'll -- I'll give it to you. You just forgot to put this one under the answers. Do you remember the Worley case? A. That sounds familiar, too, yes. Q. And that's one where your testimony was struck. Correct? A. Or limited. I don't know whether it was10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 struck. And when you say "struck", I don't -- are you trying to say I wasn't allowed to testify at all? I don't know. Q. Well, I mean, if they ruled that your testimony after the fact was completely inadmissible, I would say that your testimony was struck. A. If that's what happened there, that would be so, but I don't recall that having happened. Q. Okay. Let's go through -- so we went through the date that you were first contacted in this case, you said you thought it was June 17th. The first time you were sent anything was June 18th and you said it's fair to assume that the first time you reviewed anything or gave an opinion as to anything regarding this case would have been early July of 2021. Correct? A. That's my best estimate, but I can't be certain of that. Q. Okay. But you're positive that prior to June 25th, 2021 you would not have rendered any opinions or done anything on this case. Correct? A. No, I can't be sure of that either. Q. Okay. Do you have any notes of any phone calls with Mr. Minter or anyone in his office prior10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to June 25th, 2021? A. Not in my possession, no. Q. Okay. Is that something that, in your normal recordkeeping business, you would have kept track of? A. No. Q. Okay. So if you call a client to give them your opinion about the case, you do not charge them for that? A. Generally, I don't keep track of that separately. No, I don't. Q. Okay. But I know you testified at the beginning of this deposition that it was safe to assume that prior to June 25th, you had not rendered any opinions on this case. Correct? A. Well, I would have to amend that answer if I did say that because I can't guarantee that that's the truth. Q. Okay. All right. Do you remember who contacted you -- so you don't -- do you even know the first time you spoke with Mr. Minter regarding this case? A. No, sir. I didn't keep a record of that. Q. Okay. But the first time you formally wrote an opinion would have been in August of 2021?10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 A. No, I would have given opinions prior to that. Q. Okay. What happened in August of '21 then? A. That's when I submitted -- that's when I submitted my first invoice. Q. Okay. Do we know -- is there anywhere -- do you have anywhere in your records that would show -- I know I've already asked this, so the answer's going to be no. But is there anything that is going to show when the first opinion would have been rendered? A. I don't think so. Q. Okay. What is your understanding of what your assignment was in this case? A. My understanding of my assignment was to, first of all, perform an accident reconstruction of the accident and then to use the results of that reconstruction to examine the forces of impact involved in the accident on the Plaintiff, in particular, and to assess the likelihood of the preface of mechanisms for serious injury of the accident. Q. Okay. And you would agree with me that10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 the mechanism of serious injury, that is going to get into medical causation. Correct? A. No, it's not. Q. Okay. So let me get this correct. I'm going to break it down into three brackets here. It sounds like you got a three-prong area of what you were retained to do, and correct me if I'm wrong. You were, one, retained to determine the change in velocity to Ms. Pidherney of what she experienced during the crash or the delta-v. Correct? A. Well, that's part of the -- that's part of the accident reconstruction analysis. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. The second part, if I'm digesting what you said correctly, you are retained to determine the equivalent ways of reproducing the force of impact on Ms. Pidherney? A. That's one of the other elements that I did as far as analyzing the forces of impact onto the occupants, yes. Q. Okay. And then the third branch I would break down into in what you just said is you were hired to basically give an opinion as to analogous ways of reproducing the force of impact on Ms.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 Pidherney. Correct? A. That's another -- that's another element that was part of all of that analysis, yes. Q. Okay. All right. And you would agree with me that those last two elements, basically the equivalent ways of reproducing the force and the analogous ways of the force on Ms. Pidherney, those two elements of your testimony have been struck in almost every single case I just read to you. Correct? A. Well, you found ten cases,out of a thousand where some judges made some ruling that -- that limited what I could talk about. But you -- you're -- you're completely neglecting the existence of recent appellate court rulings which say I can talk about these things. Q. — A. And the appellate court rulings that we're talking about come after those ones that you cited that -- where I was limited. Q. Dr. Ipser, I just pulled 10. I could probably pull another 45. A. Go ahead. Go ahead and pull them and they'll all -- they'll all disagree with the appellate court rulings, too --10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 Q. Okay. A. -- that came subsequent. Q. All right. So let's keep going through the list of stuff that you received from Mr. Minter's office. You received the photographs, the accident report, you said 12 photographs, then you received the property damage information from John Neeser 2019 accident. What is that? I don't see that in the documentation that Mr. Minter provided to me, but maybe I'm not seeing it correctly. A. So there's a document, which it has a handwritten sheet, cover sheet. Q. That is an estimate from my client's vehicle., Correct? A. It is, yes. Q. Okay. All right. Then you have an accident report from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 21st, 2017. Correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Did that accident report help you or assist you in formulating your opinions in regarding -- in regards to the April 3rd, 2019 accident?10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 A. No. Q. Okay. Did that -- did that assist you in any shape or form in formulating your opinions? A. No. Q. Then why was that provided to you? A. I don't know. It's just part of the record of what's happened to the lady, I guess, in the past. I don't know. Q. But you would agree with me, like you said, you have absolutely no medical training. Correct? A. I agree. Q. Okay. So other than to ignite your opinion about this lady's history, is there any reason why Mr. Minter's office would provide this to you? A. I -- I don't know why this was provided. It just could be an element of completeness. I don't know. Q. Okay. But just so that we're all clear for the record: This accident report from November 21st, 2017 did not aid or assist you in arriving at your opinion in any shape or form. Correct? A. That's correct. Q. In fact, you, yourself, would think that10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 this document is absolutely irrelevant to your opinion. Correct? A. Well, it's not irrelevant in the sense of what's happened to this lady in her past life. But that's all. Q. Well, it's part of her history, but you're not qualified to render an opinion regarding her history. Correct? A. I don't know what you mean by that. Q. Well, in regards to a reason why a lawsuit could be brought, medical causation, you are not qualified to render any opinion about that. A. I'm not offering a medical cause. My analysis of that accident, if I did analyze it and use it in any way, wouldn't -- wouldn't -- wouldn't be a medical issue. Q. Okay. Well, in determining -- A. Excuse me. I haven't finished my answer. It would just be an element of what her history is. Q. In determining the delta-v, which are the forces you're trying to say were exerted upon Ms. Pidherney, does a prior accident in 2017 assist or alter your opinion in any shape or form? A. No, sir. No.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 Q. Okay. (Whereupon, Mr. William A. Harris entered the zoom conference room.) BY MR. ANDERSON: Q. All right. You were provided property damage records from Geico from a 2017 accident. Correct? A. I was. Q. Did those records assist or help you in arriving at your opinion in this case in any shape or form? A. No. Q. Okay. You received Number 7, an e-mail from Geico explaining certain things. Did that help or assist you in arriving at your opinions in any way? A. No. Q. All right. And then you received the deposition transcript of Ms. Pidherney. Correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Have you, yourself, as we sit here today, Dr. Ipser, is there anything else you have reviewed apart from these eight items from Mr. Minter's office? A. I think we've already mentioned the10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 additional photos that was sent subsequently. Q. How many additional photos were sent to you? A. Looks like 13. Q. Okay. And are those photographs of the Defendant's vehicle? A. They are. Q. Okay. Do you know who took those photographs? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know when those photographs were taken? A. I do not. Q. Okay. Do you know what date those 13 photographs were provided to you? A. They were provided to me within the last week. Q. Do you know if those are even the photographs of the Defendant's vehicle that was actually involved in this accident? A. Well, I can't prove that they are, but I am told that they are. Q. Was the first time you reviewed any photographs of the Defendant's vehicle within this past -- was it the first time -- was it within this10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 past week? A. I'm sorry. Repeat the question, please. Q. Was the first time you had reviewed any photographs of the Defendant's alleged vehicle that was involved in this accident, was it done within this past week? A. No. Q. Okay. So you had had prior photographs before back in -- when you -- in June of 2021? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Now, have you spoken with any of the witnesses or individuals that were involved in this accident? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who? A. I spoke with the driver of the Defendant's vehicle. Q. Okay. And when did that occur? A. That occurred when I visited the scene within the last month. Q. Okay. That was within the past month? A. Yes, sir. Q. So you did it the same day you visited the A. Exactly.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 Q. What day was that? A. I'm trying to find the date. I don't seem to have it written down here. Q. I assume you'd have it in your electronic calendar because all of us carry that. A. Oh, really? Q. I would assume you do, Dr. Ipser. You are quite the technologically advanced human being. So I would -- A. I still -- I still use hardcopies, as you see here, handwritten copies. So I'm looking at my calendar, which is handwritten, and, I'm sorry, I don't seem to be able to find anything written in here that's about the exact date of that. Let me look. But I do know it was within the last month. That's about the best I can tell you. rT can probably track it down with some other documents that I could go and see. But as far as what I have with me at the moment, I don't think I can tell you the exact date. Q. Okay. Did you charge the Defense Counsel for that drive to examine the scene? A. No. Q. Okay. That's just part of your flat fee?10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 A. Well, I would charge for that. I haven't given -- haven't made up an invoice that includes that yet. Q. Okay. But you plan on charging that. Correct? A. Yeah, I'll charge for that. Q. Okay. Is there any way of looking on your Outlook calendar or anything there in front of you and finding out which date you went and travelled to the scene? A. I don't think so. Q. Okay. When do you plan on submitting the bill to Mr. Minter? A. T don't know. I haven't decided that yet. Q. Okay. Had -- had you formulated your opinion or spoken -- A. Excuse me. I -- I found it. Q. Okay. When was that? A. I apologize. I found it in my handwritten calendar. Q. Okay. A. It was July 23rd. Q. Okay. Do you know if you had already formulated your opinions prior to July 23rd, 2021? A. Yes. The bulk of my opinions had been10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 formulated before then. Q. Okay. Did your -- did your conversation with the Defendant or -- well, the Defendant driver. I guess, he's not the Defendant. The driver of the Defendant's vehicle, how long did that conversation consist? A. I think we actually spoke with each other for about ten minutes. Q. Okay. Did he show you any photographs? Was this in person? Or was it over the phone? A. It was in person. Q. Okay. And did you speak with anyone else that's a representative of the Defense? A. Mr. Minter. Q. Okay. But anybody else over at Marion County? A. No. Q. Okay. And what did that conversation consist of with the driver? A. My memory is that it just was a conversation in which I asked him to summarize for me what he remembered about the accident. Q. Okay. Do you remember what he told you? A. Yes, sir, that he was behind the -- behind the Plain -- behind the Plaintiff in the left lane10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 going westbound on 17th, I think it was. And traffic came to a stop because of the light, which is about a block up. Near the -- the position at which the Plaintiff came to rest was near the entrance to a mall where there's a couple of restaurants including a Long Horn, and he stopped behind her. And then after he had come to a complete stop, for some reason he moved forward and impacted the rear of her vehicle. Q. Did he tell you how fast he was going when he rear-ended her? A. He felt that he was going less than five miles an hour. Q. Okay. Did he tell test -- did he tell you that she was at a complete stop when she was hit? A. He said that she was at a complete stop before she moved forward again. I don't remember whether he told me she was at a complete stop the moment she was struck. I don't remember that. Q. Would that make a difference? A. No. Q. So whether her car was at a complete stop or moving wouldn't alter your opinion in any shape or form?10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 A. No, it wouldn't. Q. Okay. Now, I see you did do, we'll call it a written report, but it's more like -- it looks like it's seven pages of handwritten notes which are your equations of this case. Correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that the only written report that you have completed in regards to this,accident? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. There isn't any other reports or anything that you have done? A. No other written documents, no, that I created. Q. Okay. So if I'm correct, the documents listed in a June 18th, 2021 correspondence from Mr. Minter, those eight items, in addition to 13 photographs that were later provided to you, you say within the past month, is that everything that's been provided to you by Mr. Minter? A. As far as evidence related to this case, I think that's true. Q. Okay. Now, I'm a little bit ata disadvantage here, Dr. Ipser, because we are not doing this in person and we are doing this by Zoom. A. Yes, sir.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 Q. Is there a way that you -- do you have all of those documents with you? A. I have them with me, yes. Q. Is there a way that you can either e-mail those to myself and Mr. Minter? Or -- or any way to get me all of that stuff? A. You mean while we're doing the depo? Q. No, after the depo. A. Yeah, I'm sure that we can make sure that you get every one of those documents, yes. Q. Okay. A. So the -- all the documents that were sent to me by Mr. Minter and my handwritten calculations? Q. Yeah. A. All the -- Q. Now, the rest of the documentation that you provided to me that you've relied on, I've got those in response to the subpoena. That's about a binder full of material. I don't need that again. A. Yeah, so I want to make sure I understand what you need. Q. Yes, sir. A. Let me summarize to see whether I'm correct. So you want everything that was sent to10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 me in connection with that June 18 letter. You want the subsequent photos that were sent to me. You want my handwritten calculations and anything else presumably that I created that I used in doing my analysis. Q. Yes, sir. A. Is that correct? Q. That is correct. A. But now -- but I've already -- we've already sent you though a whole collection of studies and stuff like that. You don't need those? Q. No. The stuff that is the studies and the articles and all that, that you've prepared, I don't need any of that. A. Okay. Q. I just want the stuff -- everything that was sent to you by Mr. Minter's office and then, yes, I've got your handwritten notes. So the handwritten notes and anything that you may have done for calculations. You are correct, that is it. A. Okay. What about the invoices? Do you want those, too? Q. Yes, I do want those because, obviously, there's -- I assume there's going to be a new one10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 where you did the site visit and everything from in talking to the Marion County driver. Correct? A. There will be at some point, yes, sir. Q. Okay. Have you been provided any other supplemental information apart from what we've just discussed? A. I don't think so. Q. All right. And, Dr. Ipser, have you formulated your opinions at this point? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And do you anticipate doing any additional work on this matter? A. No, sir, not at this point, not unless I'm asked to do so, of course. Q. Okay. Were you assisted by anyone in arriving at your opinions? A. No. Q. Okay. Well, what are your opinions in regards to this accident, sir? A. Okay. So my first opinion is that the closing velocity or relative velocity of the accident, that is the difference between the speeds of the vehicles at the moment of impact, was less than in the order of -- well, I have 7.1 miles an hour written down here. We can round that off.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 Now, I'll just give you the numbers that are written down. So the closing speed or relative velocity was less than 7.1 miles per hour. Q. Okay. And then next you've got, I assume, the delta-v calculation. Correct? A. Right. Q. What's that? A. So my best estimate of the delta-v is less than of the order of 4.5 miles an hour. Q. All right. Now, I want to stop you right there real quick. How did you arrive -- or what did you review to calculate the delta-v? A. I reviewed the photographs that were sent to me, the data that I collected on the physical characteristics of the vehicles. Q. Now, where do you get that, the physical characteristics? Now, when you say that, let me -- let me break it down for the layman's terms. What you're talking about is things like the weight, the wheelbase, the crush, the stiffness coefficients of the vehicle. Where are you obtaining this information from? A. Okay. I obtained that from an entity called Expert Auto Stats. Q. Is that also the Society of Automotive10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 Engineers? A. No, that's a separate entity. Some of the information is obtained from them also. Q. Okay. So you're not obtaining this from the actual vehicles that were involved in the accident. You're doing it on a generalized view of that make and model for that year. Correct? A. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What I'm doing is -- let me say what I'm doing is I'm collecting data on those particular vehicles, yes. Q. Understand. But you're doing a generalized for that vehicle. It's that vehicle as a whole as it is brand new. Correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. It doesn't take into account what type of stuff my client may have had in her car, any modifications she may have made to the car, any aftermarket parts she may have put on the car, anything of that sort. You're not taking any of that into account. Correct? A. I'm allowing for some of the con -- for some extra -- I'm allowing for some extra weight involving the contents of the vehicle. That's only an estimate, yes.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 Q. Now, you would agree with me the accuracy of your results, they depend on the quality of the information that was provided to you. Correct? A. of course. Q. Okay. And you, yourself, already testified you have two photographs of my client's vehicle. Correct? A. Two? Q. Yes, sir. A. No, I have more than that. Q. Okay. How many do you have? Well, let me ask you this: You didn't go out, yourself, and physically examine my client's vehicle. Correct? A. No, I didn't. Q. In fact, you've never done that. You've never gone out and taken physical measurements or weights or examined her vehicle. Correct? A. I have not examined her vehicle. Q. In fact, the photographs that you have of her vehicle don't even show you the entire car. Do they? A. They show the -- no, they focus on the region of impact. Q. Exactly. So they look at the back bumper.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 Correct? A. They do. Q. So if she has aftermarket wheels that are heavier, or if she has a cattle guard on the front, or if she's hauling a cow in her front seat, you have no idea. Correct? A. It's true that I don't know the exact weight of her vehicle. I've already said that. So I have to -- I have to -- there is some uncertainly with the exact weight that the vehicle was at the impact. I agree. Q. And. you would agree with me that basically leads to a rate of error or a percentage of error that could be accounted for. Correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what would that percentage of error -- what is the percentage of error? A. The error for information like this is in the order of ten percent. Q. I'm sorry. What? A. For example -- I would say of the order of ten percent. For example, the weight of the vehicle could be -- I could be off by a few hundred pounds on the total weight of the vehicle. Q. Would you agree with me that you've10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 testified in the past that when you're relying solely on the photographs of the vehicle, you have not examined them yourself, the rate of error could be all the way up to 25 percent? A. That would depend upon the circumstance. But in this case, because the way in which the calculation is done -- in fact, I'm confident that my upper estimate for the change of velocity of the vehicle is very accurate, the upper limit. Q. Okay. And you can get that just by merely one photograph of the bumper and nothing on the rest of the car? A. I can get that through the photographs of the region of contact, yes. Q. Okay. Did you have -- A. Along with -- along with, of course, an estimate of the total weight that's involved, which does involve some error. Q. Did you happen to examine the deposition transcript of Ms. Pidherney? A. Yes. Q. And anywhere in there was she ever asked a question whether she had anything in her vehicle or if there was any modifications made to her vehicle? A. No.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 Q. Would that be important to you? A. Well, if there are any modifications or any extreme change in weight, more than a few hundred pounds, that would cause an additional error. I agree. Q. How much of an error would that cause? A. It would depend upon how much additional weight is -- is involved. Q. Okay. Do you know how much Ms. Pidherney weighed? A. I don't think I have her exact weight. I had to allow for some weight there. There's an uncertainty in her weight. I agree. Q. So is it possible, without knowing all the specifics about the vehicle, whether it had any aftermarket parts and what the vehicle was actually carrying at the time of the accident, that that rate of error could actually climb up to 25 percent. Correct? A. I don't think so, not in this case because of the nature of the event and the situation that there's no crush damage. There's no crush damage on the surfaces of contact of the vehicle of any significance, at least according to the photographs. And I'm allowing for that surface to10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 have been pushed in as far as it could be without showing any permanent crush damage. So... Q. Do you remember -- A. So I think that my upper limit, my worst-case scenario upper limit I think is fairly accurate. Q. Okay. Do you recall providing deposition testimony in the Durgin matter? A. I don't remember what it was, no. Q. Okay. And if you had testified in that matter, which facts are very similar to this one here in our case, with a similar delta-v, similar -- similar sets of photographs, that your rate of error would have been upwards of 25 percent, would you disagree with that? A. That was a different accident in which the photographs -- the estimate of the crush damage was more difficult to perform there because of the way in which the vehicle was damaged. Q. Would you agree with me that the photographs you have of my client's vehicle do not display the entire back end of her vehicle. Correct? A. They display everything except a few inches on the extreme right corner.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 S1 Q. Okay. Do they look up underneath the bumper at all? A. No. Q. Okay. Do they look at the black clips that hold the bumper at all? A. No, sir. What they do is they -- they show the surface of contact on the vehicle and that's what one's supposed to analyze in doing this type of analysis. Q. Okay. Let's go to the next line of your opinion. What's that? A. That the acceleration loading on the vehicle, in my opinion, was less than of the order of 1571 Gs. Q. Okay. Now, did the witnesses' statements, meaning the Defendant driver and my client's statements, did they factor into your calculation in any shape or form? A. No. Q. Okay. How about -- did you notice any crush damage on the Defendant's vehicle? A. So, as I said, there's no evidence of any permanent crush damage to the structure. There's -- there's a possibility of some scratching, but there's no permanent crush damage of any10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 significance, at least not in the photographs that I have. Q. But you would agree with me, that -- that, the same as the Plaintiff's vehicle, you, yourself, had not physically examined the Defendant's vehicle in this accident. Correct? A. I have -- I have -- that's true, but that doesn't affect my opinion. Q. Okay. But you would agree with me as well that you don't know when the photog