Preview
GIRARDI | KEESE
CHRISTOPHER T. AUMAIS, Esq. (SBN: 249901)
ASHKAHN MOHAMADL Esq. (SBN: 299029)
1126 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone; (213) 977-0211
Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
STUART R. CHANDLER, Esq. (SBN: 088969)
761 East Locust Avenue, Suite 101 E-FILED
Fresno, CA 93720 1/14/2020 12:29 PM
Telephone: (559) 431-7770 Superior Court of California
Facsimile: (559) 431-7778 County of Fresno
By: K. Daves, Deputy
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID CRABTREE
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF FRESNO
12
13 DAVID CRABTREE, Case No. 1SCECG03948
(Assigned for all purposes to the Hon, Alan Simpson)
14 Plaintiff,
15 Vv. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY
16 FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, a California BY DEFENDANT'S EXPERT, WESLEY
corporation, MANUEL GARCIA CRUZ, and CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF
17 DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ.
18 Defendants.
Action Filed: December 31, 2015
19 TRC Date: January 24, 2020
Trial Date: January 27, 2020
20
21 TO DEFENDANT FOSTER POULTRY FARMS AND TO ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff DAVID CRABTREE will and hereby does move this
23 Court for issuance of the following orders limine:
24 ) An order excluding any and all evidence, references to evidence, testimony or
25 argument by Defendant's expert Wesley Curtis, Jr., with regard to the standard of care for truck
26 drivers regarding the use of high beam headlights, the standard of care for pedestrians, the effects
27 of drug or alcohol use, and the reasonableness of Defendant Cruz's evasive actions at the time of
28 the subject incident;
1
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO, 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT"
EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ.
2) An Order requiring the attorneys for all parties to instruct their witnesses, including
expert witnesses, of the court's exclusionary order on this motion; and
3) An Order that no attorney, party, or witness shall make any reference to the filing of
this Motion, whether it be granted or denied.
This motion is made and based California Evidence Code sections 210, 352, 403, existing
California case law, the California Discovery Act, on the accompanying Memorandum of Points
and Authorities, all exhibits attached hereto, the pleadings and records on file with the Court and
the Court's file, upon such matters and documents which the Court may or must take judicial notice
and upon such other oral or documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of hearing herein.
Zz
10
11 DATED: January 13, 2020 GIRARDI | KEESE
12
13
14
BY:
1S CH 'TOPHER T. AUMAIS
ASHKAHN MOHAMADI
16 Attorneys for Plaintiff
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S
EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I
SUMMARY
Plaintiff David Crabtree has brought an action for negligence against Defendant Foster
Poultry Farms, arising from a January 1, 2014 incident wherein Plaintiff was struck by a
Freightliner Tractor Trailer being operated by an employee of Defendant, in Fresno, CA
(hereinafter referred to as "Subject Incident".)
It is anticipated that DEFENDANT will attempt to offer at trial, argument and testimony
from Wesley Curtis, Jr. (Defendant’s trucking standard of care expert), with regard to the
10 following issues:
11 . Standard of care for truck drives regarding the use of high beam headlights
12 (Deposition of Wesley B. Curtis, Jr. "Curtis Depo" at 7:3-6, attached hereto as
13 Exhibit "1" to the Declaration of Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq.);
14 Standard of care for pedestrians (Curtis Depo at 7:7-12);
15 The effects of drug and/or alcohol use (Curtis Depo at 7:23-25);
16 The reasonableness of Defendant Cruz's evasive actions at the time of the subject
17 incident (Curtis Depo at 50:3-11; 50:25-51:14);
18 All of these opinions should be excluded by the court for the following reasons:
19 ° Standard of care for use of high beams:
20 o During his deposition, Curtis himself defined best practices for truck drivers as,
21
2 "what a normal trucking company or employee would exhibit in the operation of
22 their business. Basically, what the industry standard, what other companies would -
23 - would do." (Curtis Depo at 17:17-24.) He later stated that there is no difference
24 between what he defines at best practices and the standard of care for truck drivers
25 (Curtis Depo at 18:17-19:10.)
26 Curtis then proceeds to testify that it was "OK for Cruz to drive with low-beams"
27 because whether a truck driver uses their high beams should be based on."personal
28 preference" (Curtis Depo.at 75:19-76:18.)
3
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO, 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S
EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ.
o Curtis admitted that the upside to using high-beams is that drivers have more
visibility (see further down the road), and that the only downside would be that
some driver's prefer not to use them because they can be “annoying” (Curtis Depo
at 77:4-80:16.) Curtis further agreed that the greater visibility a truck driver has, the
safer they can be in the operation of their vehicle because they have more time to
react to objects in the roadway (Curtis Depo at 81:18-85:4.)
Finally, Curtis admitted that although this incident happened at night, or a roadway
with no lighting, his entire expert file involved rules for driving during daytime,
and had nothing specifically with regard to driving at night, and that he had made
10 no effort to obtain such information or documents (Curtis Depo at 120:16-121:14.)
ll Despite all of this, Curtis maintained throughout that the standard of care for the
12 use of high-beams is that drivers should act according to their “personal
13 preference”. Not only is this inconsistent with the rest of his testimony, it doesn’t
14 even qualify as a standard. In fact, it is the opposite of a standard.
15 A standard of care is a rule which, by its own nature, is independent of an
16 individual actor’s preference. That. is because a standard is what an individual
17 actor’s chosen conduct is measured against to determine whether or not it is
18 negligent. Saying that the reasonableness of certain conduct should only be defined
19 by that individual actor’s personal preference is the same as saying there should be
20 no standard .at all. Experts are not permitted to testify as to personal opinions but
22 1 rather general standards. See People y. Mayer, 108 Cal. App. .4th 403, 414-15, 133
22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 454 (2d Dist. 2003) (trial court properiy excluded expert testimony
23 because the testimony was based upon the expert's personal opinion).
24 Finally, Curtis’ report states that his opinion with regard to the use of high-beams is
25 based on “ common sense” (Curtis Depo at 75:17-21.) Evidence Code Section
26 801 (a) states that if a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of
27 an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is “(r)eiated to a subject that is
28 sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist
4
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S
EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ.
the trier of fact.” Here, by his own admission, Curtis is stating that his opinion is
not beyond the common experience.
. Standard of care for pedestrians:
© During his deposition, Curtis testified that the ‘entire basis and foundation for the
opinions he would provide at trial is expressed in his resume (Curtis Depo at 11:25-
12:4.) However, there is not a single item on his resume that display expertise in
the area of pedestrian behavior or standards of care (Curtis Resume attached hereto
as Exhibit “2” to the Declaration of Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq.)
The truth is that Curtis has no expertise or experience in this area and should not be
10 allowed to testify as to it. See Kotla v, Regents of University of California, 115 Cal.
ll App. 4th 283, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 898 (1st Dist. 2004) (courts have the obligation to
12 contain expert testimony within the area of the professed expertise, and to require
13 adequate foundation for the opinion).
14 ° Effects ef drug and/or alcohol use
15 o The entirety of Curtis! experience, background, ‘education and experience with
16 regard to drugs and alcohol is limited to his training with the California Highway
17 patrol, wherein he learned basic techniques for recognizing common characteristics
18 of persons under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol during an interaction with
19 said person,-He has no medical or scientific training. He has never been qualified to
20 opine on these subjects in any courtroom prior. Moreover, he has never had any
21 interaction with. Plaintiff Crabtree, especially not at the time of the subject incident,
22 which would ‘provide the narrow circumstances within which his limited experience
23 could possibly have some relevance to this case.
24 Any testimony he would be allowed to provide with regards to the effects of drug
25 and.or alcohol intoxication would be totally irrelevant, especially considering the
26 fact that the sole toxicology expert in the case states that Crabtree was not under the
27 influence at the time ef the incident. The testimony would serve the sole purpose of
28 confusing and misleading the jury. (Curtis Depo at 8:1-10:16), Finally, Curtis
5
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S
EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADL ESQ.
testified in his deposition that he did not plan. on providing opinions with regard to
this subject trial, ‘and had not been asked to do so by Defense counsel (Curtis. Depo
at 16:16-22.)
Evidence Code. Section 801(b) limits expert opinion testimony on matters not
“perceived by or personaliy known to the witness or made. known to him at or
before the. hearing.” See Behr v. Santa Cruz County, 172 Cal.. App. 2d 697, 709,
342 P.2d 987 (1st Dist. 1959) (an expert must base his opinion either on facts
personally observed or.on hypotheses that find support in the evidence).
° The reasonableness of Cruz's evasive maneuver:
10 o Curtis testified in deposition that Cruz made the correct decision in swerving his
11 truck left into the eastbound lane, rather than turning right and partially entering the
shoulder. He further stated that this was the correct decision because there was no
12
oncoming traffic, and the shoulder's soft dirt created a risk of overturning the truck
13
(Curtis Depo at 49:4-51:14.)
14
° He bases this opinion entirely on what his company teaches truck drivers with
15
regard to keeping their trucks on the traveled path. He provides no supporting
16
documentation, and could reference no other source or school that taught drivers a
17
similar principle (Curtis Depo at 51:18-52:14; 71:14-73:2.)
18
Moreover, his opinion that driving partially onto the shoulder created a risk of
19
overturning has absolutely no foundation. Curtis admits that although he visited the
20
site of the incident in October 2019, he has no personal knowledge of the shoulder
21
or what it is composed of, and did no testing or analysis of the dirt there. And even
22
if he did have that information, he has no foundation to assert that the current
23
conditions of the shoulder is at all similar to the conditions at the time of the
24
incident. Finally, even if he did have knowledge of the composition of the shoulder
25
at the time of the incident, he has no foundation to testify as to how that shoulder
26
would have interacted with the wheels of the subject truck, and what any possible
27
result of that interaction would have been. By his own admission he has no training
28
6
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S
EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ.
in accident reconstruction, and his education is limited to a few years of community
college (Curtis Depo at 52:15-56:8.)
Finally, Curtis attempts to provide the opinion that anytime a vehicle leaves the
main traveled portion of the roadway, there is a high probability of it losing control
and rolling over (Curtis Depo at 54:4-11.) However, he is completely unable to
explain why he bélieves this, and under what conditions this sort of risk exists.
Curtis could not state at what speed a vehicle would have to be traveling to create
such a risk, and could not testify as to what change in coefficient of friction would
have to exists for the risk to occur (Curtis Depo at 54:12-57:8.)
10 After being pressed on the issue, Curtis admits he would defer to an accident
lL reconstructionist as to any potential risks created by Cruz veering partially into the
12 shoulder. at the time of the incident, and that his opinion was based completely on
13 anecdotal evidence from his experience working with the CHP (Curtis Depo at
14 54:12-57:8.)
15 Finally, such evidence is irrelevant to any issue in this case. (Evid.Code §§ 210, 350), In
16 the alternative, the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial
17 effect (Evid, Code § 352.)
18 .
19 LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS IN LIMINE
20 A motion in limine may be used to exclude evidence before it is offered. (Evid. Code
21 § 402(b)). The motion may also seek, as in this case, a rule forbidding the mention of, or any
22 reference to, such evidence. Charbonneau y. Superior Court (1974), 42 Cal. App. 3d 505, 507).
23 The purpose of such a motion is to bar prejudicial or inadmissible evidence before it comes to a
24 jury's attention. As one court stated, a motion in limine may “avoid the obviously futile attempts to
25 ‘unring the bell' in the event a motion to strike is granted in the proceedings before the jury." Hyatt
26 y. Sierra Boat Company (1978), Cal.App.3d 325, 337.
27 Ml
28 MM
7
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S
EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should exclude any argument by Defendant's expert
Wesley Curtis, Jr., with regard to the standard of. care for truck drivers regarding the use of high
beam headlights, the standard of care for pedestrians, the effects of drug or.alcohol use, and the
reasonableness of Defendant Cruz's evasive actions at the time of the subject incident, and
prohibit any attempt to introduce, reference or mention this evidence.
DATED: January 13, 2020 GIRARDI | KEESE
a
7 Oe
Ee
LE ZF
10
ee SLE
11
12 CHRISTOPHER T. AUMAIS
Attorney for PLAINTIFF
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO, 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S
EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADL, ESQ.
DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI
I, ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, declare that I have personal knowledge of the following:
1 Tam.an attorney at law duly authorized to practice before all the courts of this state,
and am a member of the law firm of GIRARDI AND KEESE, attorneys of record for plaintiff
herein. I have personal knowledge of the facts as set forth herein and could testify competently
thereto if calied upon as a witness.
2 I make this declaration pursuant to § 2034.260(c) of the California Code of Civil
Procedure and in support of PLAINTIFF's Motion Jn Limine #6 to exclude testimony from
Defendant's expert Wesley Curtis, Jr., with regard to the standard of care for truck drivers
10 regarding the use of high beam headlights, the standard of care for pedestrians, the effects of drug
11 or alcohol use, and the reasonableness of Defendant Cruz's evasive actions at the time of the
12 subject incident. I met and conferred with defense counsel, Alan Isbell on 1/13/20.
13 3 Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of the Deposition of
14 Wesley Curtis, Jr.
15 4 Attached hereto as Exhibit “2” is a true and correct copy of the Resume of Wesley
16 Curtis, Jr.
7 5 The factual and procedural background in this matter is known to me personally. If
18 called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the statements made herein.
19
20 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed on 14"
21 of January, 2020 at Los Angeles, California.
22,
23
24 ane
AN HN MOHAMADI
25
26
27
28
9
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NG. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT"
EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADL, ESQ.
EXHIBIT "1"
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
DAVID CRABTREE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 1IS5CECG03 948
)
FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, )
MANUEL GARCIA CRUZ, AND)
DOES 1 TO 25, )
inclusive, )
Defendants. )
)
10
121
12
13
14
15 DEPOSITION OF WESLEY B. CURTIS, UR.
16 Tuesday, January 7, 2020, 11:32 A.M.
17 San Francisco, California
18
1s
20
21
22 Reported by: Heidi Belton, CSR, RPR, CRR, CCRR, CRC
23 CSR No. 12885
24 CLS Job No. 116335
25 CENTEXTLEGAL.COM - 855.CENTEXT
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES
855.CENTEXT
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
DAVID CRABTREE, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No.: 15CECG03948
)
FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, )
MANUAL GARCIA CRUZ, AND)
DOES 1 TO 25, )
inclusive, )
Defendants. )
)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 DEPOSITION OF WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR., taken
18 at Severson & Werson, One Embarcadero Center,
19 Twenty-Sixth Floor, San Francisco, California, on
20 January 7, 2020, at 11:32 a.m., before Heidi Belton,
21 Certified Shorthand Reporter, in and for the State
22 of California.
23
24
25
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES
855.CENTEXT
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff:
GIRARDI KEESE
1126 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90017
By: Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq.
213.262.6777
amohamadi@girardikeese.com
(Appeared telephonically)
For the Defendants:
10 SEVERSON & WERSON, PC
By: Allan L. Isbell, Esq.
11 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, California 94111
12 415.398.3344
ali@severson.com
13
14 ---000---
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES
855.CENTEXT
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
INDEX OF EXAMINATION
WITNESS: WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR.
EXAMINATION PAGE
BY MR. MOHAMADT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES
855.CENTEXT
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT MARKED
4
3
Exhibit Resume for Mr. Curtis 12
Exhibit Document titled “Table of 21
Contents"
Exhibit Document titled "Commercial Truck 24
Consulting, LLC Fee Schedule for
2018"
Exhibit Collection of documents titled 40
"Research Materials"
10 Exhibit Summary of opinions 721
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES
855.CENTEXT
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2020, 11:32 A.M.
San Francisco, California
WESLEY B. CURTIS, UR.,
having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
7 EXAMINATION
BY MR. MOHAMADI:
Q Good morning, Mr. Curtis.
10 A. Good morning, sir.
il Q Can you please state and spell your name
12 for the record.
13 A Wesley Brian Curtis, Junior. Last name is
14 C-U-R-T-I-S.
15 Q Thank you, Mr. Curtis.
16 I represent the plaintiff in this case,
17 Mr. David Crabtree, and you have been retained as an
18 expert in this case for the defense; is that
19 correct?
20 A You are correct.
21 Q And what is your understanding of your
22 role in this case, Mr. Curtis?
23 A To evaluate information and documents
24 provided to me and render opinions as to the conduct
25 of Mr. Cruz on the incident and violations such as
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES
855.CENTEXT
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
Vehicle Code violations, health and safety
violations, and the conduct of Mr. Crabtree.
Q Understood. Okay. Would you be providing
any opinions with regard to the standard of care for
commercial drivers?
A Yes.
Q What about the standard of care for
pedestrians?
A I would provide testimony as to what their
10 legal obligation is as far as the law.
11 Q So is that a yes?
12 A Yeah, in that context, yes.
13 Q Okay. Will you be providing any opinions
14 as to the sufficiency of training programs for
15 commercial drivers?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Okay. Would you be providing any opinions
18 with regard to accident reconstruction?
19 A No.
20 Q Will you be providing any opinions with
21 regard to biomechanics?
22 A No.
23 Q. Will you be providing any opinions with
24 regard to drug or alcohol use?
25 A If so asked, yes.
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES
855.CENTEXT
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
Q Have you prepared any opinions with
regards -- that have anything to do with drug or
alcohol use?
2Z
A Just my past -- no, nothing really no but
just my past experience with drug recognition with
the California Highway Patrol.
Q And what is that experience?
AB I received 80 hours of classroom training
and then also field training in Stockton, California
10 and certification. And then my ongoing experience
i of arresting people under the influence of drugs
12 while I was on the California Highway Patrol.
13 Q Okay. And is that experience, training,
14 and education you just went through, is that in
15 regards of being able to identify whether or not
16 someone is under the influence of alcohol or drugs
17 upon perceiving them in first person?
18 A My expertise would be able to detect
19 someone under the influence if -- if -- I had
20 contact with them, yes.
21 Q Exactly. And you didn't have contact --
22 you've never had contact with Mr. Crabtree; right?
23 A No, sir.
24 Q So in this case all that experience really
25 wouldn't be relevant; right?
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES
855.CENTEXT
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
MR. ISBELL: It's overbroad.
THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don’t know if I
can answer that. I don't know if it would be or
not.
BY MR. MOHAMADI:
Q Can you -- can you think of any way that
it would be?
MR ISBELL: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Just -- like I said, I don't
10 know how I -- I don't know if I can answer that.
11 It's just based on what his testimony was or what he
i2 said in his deposition as to what he used the night
13 before or during the course of the party on the
14 night before.
15 BY MR. MOHAMADI:
16 Q Okay. But my question to you is, is there
i7 any way -- is there any way you can think of your
18 experience being relevant in this case as you sit
19 here today?
20 MR. ISBELL: Same objection.
21 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I would feel
22 comfortable testifying due to the fact of what
23 people under the influence of certain drugs do.
24 Does that make sense? In other words --
25 BY MR. MOHAMADI:
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES
855,CENTEXT
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
Q Okay. And so what is the basis =- are you
of the opinion that Mr. Crabtree was under the
influence of alcohol or drugs?
A Just based on his testimony that he was.
Q Yeah. So that's it; right?
That's correct.
Nothing else?
A No, sir.
Q You've never done any analysis of any
10 urine samples or blood samples or anything like
11 that?
12 A No, sir.
13 Q Do you -- you have no awareness of what
14 levels if any of any drugs or alcohol were found in
15 Mr. Crabtree's system after the incident; right?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q Okay. How many times have you had your
18 deposition taken?
19 A Civilly or criminally?
20 Q Both.
21 A 25 -- well, closer to 50 with criminal and
22 civil. I think -- I did a deposition, civil, last
23 week. So I think we're up to 29 for civil.
24 So 50 total and 29 civil; is that right?
25 Yeah, approximately, yes.
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 10
855.CENTEXT
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
Q Okay. And on those 29 occasions where you
were deposed in a civil matter, was that as an
expert for either the plaintiff or defense?
A Yes, sir.
Q And were those in personal injury matters?
A Not all. I had a murder investigation. I
had a -- an assault case. I had a workers! comp
case. So they're not all personal injury.
Q Okay. Now, are you familiar with what are
10 referred to as the admonitions that are typically
11 given at the beginning of a deposition?
12 A Yes, Iam.
13 Q Would you be comfortable waiving the
14 admonitions for the purposes of this deposition?
15 A Yes, I will.
16 Q. Okay. Great.
17 Now, Mr. Curtis, I have here a document
18 that is 11 pages in length. And the first page is
19 titled "Resume of Wesley B. Curtis, Junior." Do you
20 have that document in front of you? It was produced
21 as part of your file.
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q Is this your full and complete resume?
24 Yes, it is.
25 Does this resume include all of the
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 1
855.CENTEXT
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
experience, education, training, and background that
form the basis of the opinions you're providing in
this case?
A Yes.
Q Do you have any experience, education,
training, or background that underlie the opinions
you're providing in this case that are not expressed
in this document?
A No.
10 MR. MOHAMADI : Okay. I'm going to mark
11 this document as Exhibit 1.
12 (Exhibit 1 marked.)
13 BY MR. MOHAMADI:
14 Q Now I'm looking at your resume on page 2,
15 Mr. Curtis. And as far as I can tell, it appears
16 that your first experience specifically with regard
17 to trucking starts in February of 2005; is that
18 right?
19 A Let's see. Well, I guess my question is
20 as far as with the highway patrol or prior
21 experience?
22 Q Okay So I'll ask the question again.
23 I'm not really sure what the distinction you're
24 drawing there.
25 What I'm saying is from looking at your
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 12
855.CENTEXT
WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
resume, it appears to me that your first experience,
or education, training that has to do specifically
with trucking, begins in February of 2005 --
A Well --
Q -- is that accurate or inaccurate?
A I'll have to -- it's going to be
inaccurate. I'll have to clarify. So -~ if you'll
allow me to do so.
Q Please. Go ahead.
10 A So growing up my parents had a propane gas
a1 delivery business. And -- in northern California.
12 So I drove truck for them growing up from age 16 on
13 And then I also drove what they call logging trucks
14 where they haul logs out of the woods into the mills
15 for my father-in-law who had three logging trucks.
16 So my introduction into trucking was growing up in a
17 small town in northern California.
18 Q Okay. Got it. And that's not expressed
19 on this resume; correct?
20 A No, it's not.
21 Q Okay. Let's move forward to page 5 of
22 your resume, please, of Exhibit 1.
23 Now, on page 5 there's an indication that
24 you were a speaker in 2015 at an insurance claims
25 conference; is that right?
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 13
855.CENTEXT
‘WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020
A Yes.
Q On how many occasions have you spoken at a
conference geared toward the insurance industry?
MR ISBELL: It's vague.
5 THE WITNESS: I think I've done it twice.
BY MR. ISBELL:
Q What was the other occasion?
A. Actually -- oh, hang on one second.
Unfortunately on my copy I am missing a page. Hang
10 on. I'm trying to find page 5.
iz Q It's okay. Go ahead.
12 A I'm sorry. I got it right here.
13 So -- yeah, SO -- I'm sorry. So speaker
14 was August 11, 2015. I did a claims conference. So
1s that would -- you're correct. That would be the
16 only one for the insurance industry. However, I did
17 another one in Las Vegas what they call the CSC
18 Network, which is a large conglomeration of
19 businesses, trucking businesses. So I dida
20 speaking engagement with them basically on the same
21 subject.
22 Q Is the
Preview
GIRARDI | KEESE CHRISTOPHER T. AUMAIS, Esq. (SBN: 249901) ASHKAHN MOHAMADL Esq. (SBN: 299029) 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone; (213) 977-0211 Facsimile: (213) 481-1554 STUART R. CHANDLER, Esq. (SBN: 088969) 761 East Locust Avenue, Suite 101 E-FILED Fresno, CA 93720 1/14/2020 12:29 PM Telephone: (559) 431-7770 Superior Court of California Facsimile: (559) 431-7778 County of Fresno By: K. Daves, Deputy Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID CRABTREE 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF FRESNO 12 13 DAVID CRABTREE, Case No. 1SCECG03948 (Assigned for all purposes to the Hon, Alan Simpson) 14 Plaintiff, 15 Vv. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY 16 FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, a California BY DEFENDANT'S EXPERT, WESLEY corporation, MANUEL GARCIA CRUZ, and CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF 17 DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ. 18 Defendants. Action Filed: December 31, 2015 19 TRC Date: January 24, 2020 Trial Date: January 27, 2020 20 21 TO DEFENDANT FOSTER POULTRY FARMS AND TO ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff DAVID CRABTREE will and hereby does move this 23 Court for issuance of the following orders limine: 24 ) An order excluding any and all evidence, references to evidence, testimony or 25 argument by Defendant's expert Wesley Curtis, Jr., with regard to the standard of care for truck 26 drivers regarding the use of high beam headlights, the standard of care for pedestrians, the effects 27 of drug or alcohol use, and the reasonableness of Defendant Cruz's evasive actions at the time of 28 the subject incident; 1 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO, 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT" EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ. 2) An Order requiring the attorneys for all parties to instruct their witnesses, including expert witnesses, of the court's exclusionary order on this motion; and 3) An Order that no attorney, party, or witness shall make any reference to the filing of this Motion, whether it be granted or denied. This motion is made and based California Evidence Code sections 210, 352, 403, existing California case law, the California Discovery Act, on the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all exhibits attached hereto, the pleadings and records on file with the Court and the Court's file, upon such matters and documents which the Court may or must take judicial notice and upon such other oral or documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of hearing herein. Zz 10 11 DATED: January 13, 2020 GIRARDI | KEESE 12 13 14 BY: 1S CH 'TOPHER T. AUMAIS ASHKAHN MOHAMADI 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I SUMMARY Plaintiff David Crabtree has brought an action for negligence against Defendant Foster Poultry Farms, arising from a January 1, 2014 incident wherein Plaintiff was struck by a Freightliner Tractor Trailer being operated by an employee of Defendant, in Fresno, CA (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Incident".) It is anticipated that DEFENDANT will attempt to offer at trial, argument and testimony from Wesley Curtis, Jr. (Defendant’s trucking standard of care expert), with regard to the 10 following issues: 11 . Standard of care for truck drives regarding the use of high beam headlights 12 (Deposition of Wesley B. Curtis, Jr. "Curtis Depo" at 7:3-6, attached hereto as 13 Exhibit "1" to the Declaration of Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq.); 14 Standard of care for pedestrians (Curtis Depo at 7:7-12); 15 The effects of drug and/or alcohol use (Curtis Depo at 7:23-25); 16 The reasonableness of Defendant Cruz's evasive actions at the time of the subject 17 incident (Curtis Depo at 50:3-11; 50:25-51:14); 18 All of these opinions should be excluded by the court for the following reasons: 19 ° Standard of care for use of high beams: 20 o During his deposition, Curtis himself defined best practices for truck drivers as, 21 2 "what a normal trucking company or employee would exhibit in the operation of 22 their business. Basically, what the industry standard, what other companies would - 23 - would do." (Curtis Depo at 17:17-24.) He later stated that there is no difference 24 between what he defines at best practices and the standard of care for truck drivers 25 (Curtis Depo at 18:17-19:10.) 26 Curtis then proceeds to testify that it was "OK for Cruz to drive with low-beams" 27 because whether a truck driver uses their high beams should be based on."personal 28 preference" (Curtis Depo.at 75:19-76:18.) 3 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO, 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ. o Curtis admitted that the upside to using high-beams is that drivers have more visibility (see further down the road), and that the only downside would be that some driver's prefer not to use them because they can be “annoying” (Curtis Depo at 77:4-80:16.) Curtis further agreed that the greater visibility a truck driver has, the safer they can be in the operation of their vehicle because they have more time to react to objects in the roadway (Curtis Depo at 81:18-85:4.) Finally, Curtis admitted that although this incident happened at night, or a roadway with no lighting, his entire expert file involved rules for driving during daytime, and had nothing specifically with regard to driving at night, and that he had made 10 no effort to obtain such information or documents (Curtis Depo at 120:16-121:14.) ll Despite all of this, Curtis maintained throughout that the standard of care for the 12 use of high-beams is that drivers should act according to their “personal 13 preference”. Not only is this inconsistent with the rest of his testimony, it doesn’t 14 even qualify as a standard. In fact, it is the opposite of a standard. 15 A standard of care is a rule which, by its own nature, is independent of an 16 individual actor’s preference. That. is because a standard is what an individual 17 actor’s chosen conduct is measured against to determine whether or not it is 18 negligent. Saying that the reasonableness of certain conduct should only be defined 19 by that individual actor’s personal preference is the same as saying there should be 20 no standard .at all. Experts are not permitted to testify as to personal opinions but 22 1 rather general standards. See People y. Mayer, 108 Cal. App. .4th 403, 414-15, 133 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 454 (2d Dist. 2003) (trial court properiy excluded expert testimony 23 because the testimony was based upon the expert's personal opinion). 24 Finally, Curtis’ report states that his opinion with regard to the use of high-beams is 25 based on “ common sense” (Curtis Depo at 75:17-21.) Evidence Code Section 26 801 (a) states that if a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of 27 an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is “(r)eiated to a subject that is 28 sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist 4 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ. the trier of fact.” Here, by his own admission, Curtis is stating that his opinion is not beyond the common experience. . Standard of care for pedestrians: © During his deposition, Curtis testified that the ‘entire basis and foundation for the opinions he would provide at trial is expressed in his resume (Curtis Depo at 11:25- 12:4.) However, there is not a single item on his resume that display expertise in the area of pedestrian behavior or standards of care (Curtis Resume attached hereto as Exhibit “2” to the Declaration of Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq.) The truth is that Curtis has no expertise or experience in this area and should not be 10 allowed to testify as to it. See Kotla v, Regents of University of California, 115 Cal. ll App. 4th 283, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 898 (1st Dist. 2004) (courts have the obligation to 12 contain expert testimony within the area of the professed expertise, and to require 13 adequate foundation for the opinion). 14 ° Effects ef drug and/or alcohol use 15 o The entirety of Curtis! experience, background, ‘education and experience with 16 regard to drugs and alcohol is limited to his training with the California Highway 17 patrol, wherein he learned basic techniques for recognizing common characteristics 18 of persons under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol during an interaction with 19 said person,-He has no medical or scientific training. He has never been qualified to 20 opine on these subjects in any courtroom prior. Moreover, he has never had any 21 interaction with. Plaintiff Crabtree, especially not at the time of the subject incident, 22 which would ‘provide the narrow circumstances within which his limited experience 23 could possibly have some relevance to this case. 24 Any testimony he would be allowed to provide with regards to the effects of drug 25 and.or alcohol intoxication would be totally irrelevant, especially considering the 26 fact that the sole toxicology expert in the case states that Crabtree was not under the 27 influence at the time ef the incident. The testimony would serve the sole purpose of 28 confusing and misleading the jury. (Curtis Depo at 8:1-10:16), Finally, Curtis 5 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADL ESQ. testified in his deposition that he did not plan. on providing opinions with regard to this subject trial, ‘and had not been asked to do so by Defense counsel (Curtis. Depo at 16:16-22.) Evidence Code. Section 801(b) limits expert opinion testimony on matters not “perceived by or personaliy known to the witness or made. known to him at or before the. hearing.” See Behr v. Santa Cruz County, 172 Cal.. App. 2d 697, 709, 342 P.2d 987 (1st Dist. 1959) (an expert must base his opinion either on facts personally observed or.on hypotheses that find support in the evidence). ° The reasonableness of Cruz's evasive maneuver: 10 o Curtis testified in deposition that Cruz made the correct decision in swerving his 11 truck left into the eastbound lane, rather than turning right and partially entering the shoulder. He further stated that this was the correct decision because there was no 12 oncoming traffic, and the shoulder's soft dirt created a risk of overturning the truck 13 (Curtis Depo at 49:4-51:14.) 14 ° He bases this opinion entirely on what his company teaches truck drivers with 15 regard to keeping their trucks on the traveled path. He provides no supporting 16 documentation, and could reference no other source or school that taught drivers a 17 similar principle (Curtis Depo at 51:18-52:14; 71:14-73:2.) 18 Moreover, his opinion that driving partially onto the shoulder created a risk of 19 overturning has absolutely no foundation. Curtis admits that although he visited the 20 site of the incident in October 2019, he has no personal knowledge of the shoulder 21 or what it is composed of, and did no testing or analysis of the dirt there. And even 22 if he did have that information, he has no foundation to assert that the current 23 conditions of the shoulder is at all similar to the conditions at the time of the 24 incident. Finally, even if he did have knowledge of the composition of the shoulder 25 at the time of the incident, he has no foundation to testify as to how that shoulder 26 would have interacted with the wheels of the subject truck, and what any possible 27 result of that interaction would have been. By his own admission he has no training 28 6 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ. in accident reconstruction, and his education is limited to a few years of community college (Curtis Depo at 52:15-56:8.) Finally, Curtis attempts to provide the opinion that anytime a vehicle leaves the main traveled portion of the roadway, there is a high probability of it losing control and rolling over (Curtis Depo at 54:4-11.) However, he is completely unable to explain why he bélieves this, and under what conditions this sort of risk exists. Curtis could not state at what speed a vehicle would have to be traveling to create such a risk, and could not testify as to what change in coefficient of friction would have to exists for the risk to occur (Curtis Depo at 54:12-57:8.) 10 After being pressed on the issue, Curtis admits he would defer to an accident lL reconstructionist as to any potential risks created by Cruz veering partially into the 12 shoulder. at the time of the incident, and that his opinion was based completely on 13 anecdotal evidence from his experience working with the CHP (Curtis Depo at 14 54:12-57:8.) 15 Finally, such evidence is irrelevant to any issue in this case. (Evid.Code §§ 210, 350), In 16 the alternative, the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial 17 effect (Evid, Code § 352.) 18 . 19 LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS IN LIMINE 20 A motion in limine may be used to exclude evidence before it is offered. (Evid. Code 21 § 402(b)). The motion may also seek, as in this case, a rule forbidding the mention of, or any 22 reference to, such evidence. Charbonneau y. Superior Court (1974), 42 Cal. App. 3d 505, 507). 23 The purpose of such a motion is to bar prejudicial or inadmissible evidence before it comes to a 24 jury's attention. As one court stated, a motion in limine may “avoid the obviously futile attempts to 25 ‘unring the bell' in the event a motion to strike is granted in the proceedings before the jury." Hyatt 26 y. Sierra Boat Company (1978), Cal.App.3d 325, 337. 27 Ml 28 MM 7 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, ESQ. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should exclude any argument by Defendant's expert Wesley Curtis, Jr., with regard to the standard of. care for truck drivers regarding the use of high beam headlights, the standard of care for pedestrians, the effects of drug or.alcohol use, and the reasonableness of Defendant Cruz's evasive actions at the time of the subject incident, and prohibit any attempt to introduce, reference or mention this evidence. DATED: January 13, 2020 GIRARDI | KEESE a 7 Oe Ee LE ZF 10 ee SLE 11 12 CHRISTOPHER T. AUMAIS Attorney for PLAINTIFF 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO, 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT'S EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADL, ESQ. DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADI I, ASHKAHN MOHAMADI, declare that I have personal knowledge of the following: 1 Tam.an attorney at law duly authorized to practice before all the courts of this state, and am a member of the law firm of GIRARDI AND KEESE, attorneys of record for plaintiff herein. I have personal knowledge of the facts as set forth herein and could testify competently thereto if calied upon as a witness. 2 I make this declaration pursuant to § 2034.260(c) of the California Code of Civil Procedure and in support of PLAINTIFF's Motion Jn Limine #6 to exclude testimony from Defendant's expert Wesley Curtis, Jr., with regard to the standard of care for truck drivers 10 regarding the use of high beam headlights, the standard of care for pedestrians, the effects of drug 11 or alcohol use, and the reasonableness of Defendant Cruz's evasive actions at the time of the 12 subject incident. I met and conferred with defense counsel, Alan Isbell on 1/13/20. 13 3 Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of the Deposition of 14 Wesley Curtis, Jr. 15 4 Attached hereto as Exhibit “2” is a true and correct copy of the Resume of Wesley 16 Curtis, Jr. 7 5 The factual and procedural background in this matter is known to me personally. If 18 called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the statements made herein. 19 20 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed on 14" 21 of January, 2020 at Los Angeles, California. 22, 23 24 ane AN HN MOHAMADI 25 26 27 28 9 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NG. 6 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANT" EXPERT WESLEY CURTIS, JR.; DECLARATION OF ASHKAHN MOHAMADL, ESQ. EXHIBIT "1" WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO DAVID CRABTREE, Plaintiff, vs. Case No.: 1IS5CECG03 948 ) FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, ) MANUEL GARCIA CRUZ, AND) DOES 1 TO 25, ) inclusive, ) Defendants. ) ) 10 121 12 13 14 15 DEPOSITION OF WESLEY B. CURTIS, UR. 16 Tuesday, January 7, 2020, 11:32 A.M. 17 San Francisco, California 18 1s 20 21 22 Reported by: Heidi Belton, CSR, RPR, CRR, CCRR, CRC 23 CSR No. 12885 24 CLS Job No. 116335 25 CENTEXTLEGAL.COM - 855.CENTEXT CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 855.CENTEXT WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO DAVID CRABTREE, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No.: 15CECG03948 ) FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, ) MANUAL GARCIA CRUZ, AND) DOES 1 TO 25, ) inclusive, ) Defendants. ) ) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 DEPOSITION OF WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR., taken 18 at Severson & Werson, One Embarcadero Center, 19 Twenty-Sixth Floor, San Francisco, California, on 20 January 7, 2020, at 11:32 a.m., before Heidi Belton, 21 Certified Shorthand Reporter, in and for the State 22 of California. 23 24 25 CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 855.CENTEXT WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff: GIRARDI KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017 By: Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq. 213.262.6777 amohamadi@girardikeese.com (Appeared telephonically) For the Defendants: 10 SEVERSON & WERSON, PC By: Allan L. Isbell, Esq. 11 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, California 94111 12 415.398.3344 ali@severson.com 13 14 ---000--- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 855.CENTEXT WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 INDEX OF EXAMINATION WITNESS: WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. EXAMINATION PAGE BY MR. MOHAMADT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 855.CENTEXT WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 INDEX TO EXHIBITS EXHIBIT MARKED 4 3 Exhibit Resume for Mr. Curtis 12 Exhibit Document titled “Table of 21 Contents" Exhibit Document titled "Commercial Truck 24 Consulting, LLC Fee Schedule for 2018" Exhibit Collection of documents titled 40 "Research Materials" 10 Exhibit Summary of opinions 721 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 855.CENTEXT WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2020, 11:32 A.M. San Francisco, California WESLEY B. CURTIS, UR., having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. MOHAMADI: Q Good morning, Mr. Curtis. 10 A. Good morning, sir. il Q Can you please state and spell your name 12 for the record. 13 A Wesley Brian Curtis, Junior. Last name is 14 C-U-R-T-I-S. 15 Q Thank you, Mr. Curtis. 16 I represent the plaintiff in this case, 17 Mr. David Crabtree, and you have been retained as an 18 expert in this case for the defense; is that 19 correct? 20 A You are correct. 21 Q And what is your understanding of your 22 role in this case, Mr. Curtis? 23 A To evaluate information and documents 24 provided to me and render opinions as to the conduct 25 of Mr. Cruz on the incident and violations such as CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 855.CENTEXT WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 Vehicle Code violations, health and safety violations, and the conduct of Mr. Crabtree. Q Understood. Okay. Would you be providing any opinions with regard to the standard of care for commercial drivers? A Yes. Q What about the standard of care for pedestrians? A I would provide testimony as to what their 10 legal obligation is as far as the law. 11 Q So is that a yes? 12 A Yeah, in that context, yes. 13 Q Okay. Will you be providing any opinions 14 as to the sufficiency of training programs for 15 commercial drivers? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. Would you be providing any opinions 18 with regard to accident reconstruction? 19 A No. 20 Q Will you be providing any opinions with 21 regard to biomechanics? 22 A No. 23 Q. Will you be providing any opinions with 24 regard to drug or alcohol use? 25 A If so asked, yes. CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 855.CENTEXT WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 Q Have you prepared any opinions with regards -- that have anything to do with drug or alcohol use? 2Z A Just my past -- no, nothing really no but just my past experience with drug recognition with the California Highway Patrol. Q And what is that experience? AB I received 80 hours of classroom training and then also field training in Stockton, California 10 and certification. And then my ongoing experience i of arresting people under the influence of drugs 12 while I was on the California Highway Patrol. 13 Q Okay. And is that experience, training, 14 and education you just went through, is that in 15 regards of being able to identify whether or not 16 someone is under the influence of alcohol or drugs 17 upon perceiving them in first person? 18 A My expertise would be able to detect 19 someone under the influence if -- if -- I had 20 contact with them, yes. 21 Q Exactly. And you didn't have contact -- 22 you've never had contact with Mr. Crabtree; right? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q So in this case all that experience really 25 wouldn't be relevant; right? CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 855.CENTEXT WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 MR. ISBELL: It's overbroad. THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don’t know if I can answer that. I don't know if it would be or not. BY MR. MOHAMADI: Q Can you -- can you think of any way that it would be? MR ISBELL: Same objection. THE WITNESS: Just -- like I said, I don't 10 know how I -- I don't know if I can answer that. 11 It's just based on what his testimony was or what he i2 said in his deposition as to what he used the night 13 before or during the course of the party on the 14 night before. 15 BY MR. MOHAMADI: 16 Q Okay. But my question to you is, is there i7 any way -- is there any way you can think of your 18 experience being relevant in this case as you sit 19 here today? 20 MR. ISBELL: Same objection. 21 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I would feel 22 comfortable testifying due to the fact of what 23 people under the influence of certain drugs do. 24 Does that make sense? In other words -- 25 BY MR. MOHAMADI: CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 855,CENTEXT WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 Q Okay. And so what is the basis =- are you of the opinion that Mr. Crabtree was under the influence of alcohol or drugs? A Just based on his testimony that he was. Q Yeah. So that's it; right? That's correct. Nothing else? A No, sir. Q You've never done any analysis of any 10 urine samples or blood samples or anything like 11 that? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q Do you -- you have no awareness of what 14 levels if any of any drugs or alcohol were found in 15 Mr. Crabtree's system after the incident; right? 16 A That's correct. 17 Q Okay. How many times have you had your 18 deposition taken? 19 A Civilly or criminally? 20 Q Both. 21 A 25 -- well, closer to 50 with criminal and 22 civil. I think -- I did a deposition, civil, last 23 week. So I think we're up to 29 for civil. 24 So 50 total and 29 civil; is that right? 25 Yeah, approximately, yes. CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 10 855.CENTEXT WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 Q Okay. And on those 29 occasions where you were deposed in a civil matter, was that as an expert for either the plaintiff or defense? A Yes, sir. Q And were those in personal injury matters? A Not all. I had a murder investigation. I had a -- an assault case. I had a workers! comp case. So they're not all personal injury. Q Okay. Now, are you familiar with what are 10 referred to as the admonitions that are typically 11 given at the beginning of a deposition? 12 A Yes, Iam. 13 Q Would you be comfortable waiving the 14 admonitions for the purposes of this deposition? 15 A Yes, I will. 16 Q. Okay. Great. 17 Now, Mr. Curtis, I have here a document 18 that is 11 pages in length. And the first page is 19 titled "Resume of Wesley B. Curtis, Junior." Do you 20 have that document in front of you? It was produced 21 as part of your file. 22 A. Yes, I do. 23 Q Is this your full and complete resume? 24 Yes, it is. 25 Does this resume include all of the CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 1 855.CENTEXT WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 experience, education, training, and background that form the basis of the opinions you're providing in this case? A Yes. Q Do you have any experience, education, training, or background that underlie the opinions you're providing in this case that are not expressed in this document? A No. 10 MR. MOHAMADI : Okay. I'm going to mark 11 this document as Exhibit 1. 12 (Exhibit 1 marked.) 13 BY MR. MOHAMADI: 14 Q Now I'm looking at your resume on page 2, 15 Mr. Curtis. And as far as I can tell, it appears 16 that your first experience specifically with regard 17 to trucking starts in February of 2005; is that 18 right? 19 A Let's see. Well, I guess my question is 20 as far as with the highway patrol or prior 21 experience? 22 Q Okay So I'll ask the question again. 23 I'm not really sure what the distinction you're 24 drawing there. 25 What I'm saying is from looking at your CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 12 855.CENTEXT WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 resume, it appears to me that your first experience, or education, training that has to do specifically with trucking, begins in February of 2005 -- A Well -- Q -- is that accurate or inaccurate? A I'll have to -- it's going to be inaccurate. I'll have to clarify. So -~ if you'll allow me to do so. Q Please. Go ahead. 10 A So growing up my parents had a propane gas a1 delivery business. And -- in northern California. 12 So I drove truck for them growing up from age 16 on 13 And then I also drove what they call logging trucks 14 where they haul logs out of the woods into the mills 15 for my father-in-law who had three logging trucks. 16 So my introduction into trucking was growing up in a 17 small town in northern California. 18 Q Okay. Got it. And that's not expressed 19 on this resume; correct? 20 A No, it's not. 21 Q Okay. Let's move forward to page 5 of 22 your resume, please, of Exhibit 1. 23 Now, on page 5 there's an indication that 24 you were a speaker in 2015 at an insurance claims 25 conference; is that right? CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES 13 855.CENTEXT ‘WESLEY B. CURTIS, JR. January 07, 2020 A Yes. Q On how many occasions have you spoken at a conference geared toward the insurance industry? MR ISBELL: It's vague. 5 THE WITNESS: I think I've done it twice. BY MR. ISBELL: Q What was the other occasion? A. Actually -- oh, hang on one second. Unfortunately on my copy I am missing a page. Hang 10 on. I'm trying to find page 5. iz Q It's okay. Go ahead. 12 A I'm sorry. I got it right here. 13 So -- yeah, SO -- I'm sorry. So speaker 14 was August 11, 2015. I did a claims conference. So 1s that would -- you're correct. That would be the 16 only one for the insurance industry. However, I did 17 another one in Las Vegas what they call the CSC 18 Network, which is a large conglomeration of 19 businesses, trucking businesses. So I dida 20 speaking engagement with them basically on the same 21 subject. 22 Q Is the