Preview
B. MARK FONG, ESQ. (SBN 99672)
mfong@minamitamaki.com
SEEMA BHATT, ESQ. (SBN 275278)
sbhatt@minamitamaki.com
EMBER OPAROWSKI, ESQ. (SBN 290086)
eoparowski@minamitamaki.com
MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
360 Post Street, 8th Floor
San Francisco, Ca 94108-4903
Tel: (415) 788-9000
Fax: (415) 398-3887
MICHAEL A. KELLY (State Bar #71460)
mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
DORIS CHENG (State Bar #197731)
dcheng@walkuplawoffice.com
ANDREW P. McDEVITT (State Bar #271371)
amcdevitt@walkuplawoffice.com
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, Ca 94108
Tel: (415) 981-7210
Fax: (415) 391-6965
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
SZ HUA HUANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WEI LUN
HUANG, DECEASED; TRINITY HUANG, A
MINOR; TRISTAN HUANG, A MINOR
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as Case No. 19CV346663
successor in interest to WEI LUN HUANG,
deceased; TRINITY HUANG, a minor; PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL
TRISTAN HUANG, a minor, MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT
DEFENSE EXPERT STEPHEN
Plaintiffs, FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY
Action Filed: April 26, 2019
Trial Date: March 18, 2024
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs request that Caltrans counsel instruct its accident reconstruction expert Stephen
Fenton as follows:
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT
STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663
1 (1) Based upon the Court’s order during the motions in limine hearings, Counsel and Mr.
2 Fenton are prohibited from eliciting or offering any testimony or evidence about injuries to Mr.
3 Huang, including any contact between any object and Mr. Huang’s body;
4 (2) Based upon the Court’s order during the motions in limine hearings, Counsel and Mr.
5 Fenton are prohibited from eliciting or offering any testimony, evidence, or inference that Mr.
6 Huang would have been killed by an alleged secondary impact between the Tesla and Mazda if the
7 crash attenuator had been functional;
8 (3) Based upon the Court’s order during the motions in limine hearings, Mr. Fenton can
9 only respond to the accident reconstruction experts in this case (i.e., Rene Castaneda and James
10 Walker), and not any of the biomechanical experts (i.e., Dr. Mark Shattuck and Lars Reinhart).
11 Based upon these rulings, Plaintiffs renew the motion to prohibit Mr. Fenton from giving
12 any opinions about the “severity” of an alleged collision between the Mazda and Tesla, which the
13 Court did not rule upon at the time of the hearing.
14 Additionally, Plaintiffs move to preclude Mr. Fenton from introducing any new opinions
15 or PowerPoint slides as he attempted to do at the 402 hearing. Plaintiffs also wish to alert the
16 Court that Mr. Fenton did not perform any analysis as to the extent or nature of the damage to the
17 Tesla after impact with a hypothetical functional attenuator. He cannot now offer opinions about
18 the extent, nature or significance of any such damage, as the same would violate Kennemur and
19 the Court’s Order barring any testimony about injury or biomechanics.
20 I. CALTRANS AND FENTON ARE PROHIBITED FROM ADDRESSING ANY
TOPIC RELATED TO IMPACT ON MR. HUANG’S BODY
21
A. It Is Anticipated that Fenton Will Seek to Introduce Testimony About Forces
22 and Impact to Mr. Huang’s Body in Violation of the Court Order
23 During the 402 hearing, Caltrans counsel told the Court that “the only thing Mr. Fenton is
24 qualified to do and which we’ve attempted to do is rebut the opinions of the opposing
25 reconstruction experts" and Caltrans' counsel affirmed the Court’s query that Fenton was only
26 being called for rebuttal and impeachment. (Declaration of Andrew McDevitt ["McDevitt Decl."],
27 Exhibit 1, Trial Tr. at 374:22-28 [emphasis added].) Mr. Fenton cannot rebut or opine on the
28 testimony of Dr. Mark Shattuck, a biomechanical PhD, who this Court has already qualified to
LAW OFFICES OF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY
& SCHOENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2
650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT
26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
(415) 981-7210
STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663
1 testify on biomechanical issues, injury causation, medical causation, and medical diagnoses –
2 areas outside Mr. Fenton's expertise.
3 Mr. Fenton’s testimony was struck in its entirety in another trial wherein he was testifying
4 on behalf of Caltrans and violated the motion in limine order. In the matter of Wolkoff v. State of
5 California Department of Transportation, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CIV
6 481154, Hon. Steven Dylina found that Mr. Fenton was “trying to sneak in an opinion” in
7 violation of the Court’s orders. Judge Dylina struck Mr. Fenton’s testimony and instructed the
8 jury: “Mr. Fenton just testified. The Court has ordered his testimony stricken. I made certain
9 orders as to Mr. Fenton’s testimony, and those orders have been violated. So you are to totally
10 disregard any of Mr. Fenton’s testimony.” (McDevitt Decl., Exhibit 7, Wolkoff Trial Transcript at
11 2144:7 – 2154:17.)
12 Despite Caltrans counsel’s attempt to solicit biomechanical opinions from Mr. Castaneda
13 during her examination, Mr. Castaneda testified that impact or injury to Mr. Huang’s body was
14 outside his area of expertise:
15 Q.· Okay.· And now, assuming the driver is still seated in that seat, you would
expect that crossmember to strike the driver in the lower extremities; correct?
16
A.· You know, I haven't addressed those.· I would direct anything with occupant
17 contact to a biomechanist, which I haven't done any work in that regard, Counsel.
18 Q.· And would that biomechanical person be Dr. Shattuck?
19 A.· Yes.
20 Q.· You worked with Dr. Shattuck on this case; didn't you?
21 A.· I did.
22 Q.· And did you work together to orient the components in this photograph?
23 A.· Dr. Shattuck was present at the time of this inspection, and a separate
inspection as well.
24
Q.· All right. So we have heard from the coroner in this case, who
25 diagrammed all the injuries, and I can represent to you that she did not
indicate there were any fractures in the lower extremities.· Any reason to
26 disagree with that?
27 A.· I think that's -- I can't disagree or agree because that's outside the area of my
work.
28
LAW OFFICES OF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY
& SCHOENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
3
650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT
26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
(415) 981-7210
STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663
1 (Trial Tr. at 2758:28). Caltrans further probed Mr. Castaneda:
2 Q.· All right. And you would note -- or you noted that there were deformities
to the steering wheel; correct?
3
A.· I did note that in my documentation.
4
Q.· Okay.· And can you describe where those deformities are in the steering
5 wheel.
6 A.· Well, you know, I would leave some of those, because it was examined in
much greater detail by Dr. Shattuck, who is addressing the biomechanics of this.
7 My focus was more on the structural components of this.· So without looking at
photos, I couldn't give you a better description, Counsel.
8
·Q.· Okay.· Well, in fact, wasn't it deformed at the top portion of the steering
9 wheel?
10 A.· Again, without looking at my photos, Counsel, I don't feel comfortable telling
you that.· If I can bring them up, I can tell you where the damages are.
11
Q.· All right. What about on the bottom portion of the steering wheel?
12
A.· Same answer, Counsel.
13
Q.· Okay.· But you did note that it was deformed; right?
14
A.· There's deformation, correct.
15
Q.· Right. And in other words, if the steering wheel is on a plane, some of the
16 portions of the steering wheel are now bent out of plane; correct?
17 A.· They would be bent out of plane, correct.
18 Q.· Do you know how that damage to the steering wheel occurred?
19 A.· I think we're getting into an area, Counsel, where I essentially hand off to the
biomechanist because they're dealing with the occupant kinematics and person-to-
20 vehicle interaction, and I definitely don't want to get into that area because I've not
really worked that up.
21
Q.· So is it your belief that the deformation occurred as a result of occupant
22 interaction with the steering wheel?
23 A.· I don't have an opinion one way or the other right now, Counsel.· Again, this is
something that would be, I think, a better question for a different expert.
24
(Trial Tr. at 2800:5 – 2801:16.)
25
The Court can infer from Caltrans’ cross-examination that it intends to elicit opinions from
26
Mr. Fenton about the forces to Mr. Huang’s head and face due to an alleged impact between the
27
Mazda and the Tesla. During his deposition, Mr. Fenton admitted that he is not able to offer any
28
LAW OFFICES OF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY
& SCHOENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
4
650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT
26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
(415) 981-7210
STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663
1 opinion about Mr. Huang’s injuries in connection with any impact against any object, but he
2 nevertheless wanted to opine:
3 “I’m just saying that that second impact was a severe impact. And to neglect it
would be improper. Because we know that the dash panel and steering wheel in
4 Impact 2 is pushed into the occupant compartment making contact with the driver.”
5 (McDevitt Decl., Exhibit 2, Fenton Depo. at 46:1-22.)
6 B. The Court’s Order at the 402 Hearing
7 This Court specifically ordered that Mr. Fenton cannot opine, and Caltrans cannot argue,
8 that Mr. Huang would have died even if the crash attenuator had been fully functional. (Trial Tr. at
9 377:2-11.) In this respect, the Court has restricted Mr. Fenton’s testimony to non-medical, non-
10 injury causation rebuttal accident reconstruction expert, but has not yet ruled on whether he can
11 give an opinion about the severity of an alleged second collision with the Mazda.
12 During the 402 hearing, the Court sustained Plaintiffs and Tesla’s objections to Ms. Low’s
13 question: “Did you form any opinion regarding the severity of the driver’s impact with the
14 interior of the vehicle?” (Trial Tr. at 344:11-17.) Mr. Fenton nevertheless injected “I’m just
15 talking about kinematics and contact based on vehicle damage and injuries suffered by the driver.”
16 (See id. at 347:19-25.)
17 After the 402 hearing, the Court ruled:
18 All right. So right now it seems like my current ruling that, at this point, Mr. Fenton
can testify as to the what-if scenario. He can't talk about anything to do with
19 injury.
20 I'll think about the severe -- we have time before the trial, but he can testify as to
the forces and delta v and all that stuff.
21
22 (Id., at 387:16-21 (emphasis added).)
23 Here, the Court must act as a gatekeeper to ensure that Mr. Fenton’s opinion testimony
24 before the jury does not exceed the limits imposed by the Court's in limine ruling or veer outside
25 his area of expertise. As such, Mr. Fenton must be precluded from offering evidence, opinion,
26 testimony, inference, or argument as to:
27 1. Human anatomy;
28 2. The mechanics of physical injury experienced by Mr. Huang;
LAW OFFICES OF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY
& SCHOENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
5
650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT
26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
(415) 981-7210
STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663
1 3. The nature, extent, origin or volume of bleeding/blood loss experienced by Mr.
2 Huang;
3 4. The nature, extent, cause of any tissue injury suffered by Mr Huang;
4 5. The injury producing movement(s) or intrusions of any Tesla components causing
5 physical injury to Mr Huang;
6 6. The forces or impact on Mr. Huang’s body due to the Tesla’s contact with the
7 broken attenuator;
8 7. The presence, absence or extent of any physical injury or imprint on Mr. Huang’s
9 body in connection with the hypothetical collision between the Tesla and a functional attenuator;
10 8. The potential or actual physical consequences to Mr. Huang’s body in connection
11 with any hypothetical collision with a functioning attenuator (the so called “what-if” scenario);
12 9. The mechanism, sequence and injury producing events allegedly causing injury or
13 death to Mr. Huang in a hypothetical collision involving a functioning attenuator (so called “what-
14 if” scenario)
15 10. Injury producing forces or contacts in any subsequent impact with cars in a
16 hypothetical “what-if” scenario.
17 Plaintiffs further request that the Court preclude Mr. Fenton from commenting, showing,
18 explaining, or using medical illustrations or medical exhibits in response to Dr. Shattuck or Lars
19 Reinhart’s testimony.
20 This Court already admonished Mr. Fenton and Caltrans' counsel that he is not to provide
21 opinions beyond those specifically limited to rebutting and impeaching Plaintiffs' accident
22 reconstructionist. The purpose of such in limine orders is to “avoid the obviously futile attempt to
23 unring the bell in the event a motion to strike is granted in the proceedings before the jury.” (Hyatt
24 v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337; Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49
25 Cal.App.4th 659, 669.) Because expert testimony carries considerable weight with the jury but
26 may be misleading, it is imperative that the Court ensure that Mr. Fenton's testimony is contained
27 to the narrow parameters previously issued and not permit him to interpose improper opinion
28 testimony before the jury. (See, e.g., People v. Kelly (1976) ["Lay jurors tend to give considerable
LAW OFFICES OF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY
& SCHOENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
6
650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT
26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
(415) 981-7210
STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663
1 weight to 'scientific' evidence when presented by 'experts' with impressive credentials," and such
2 evidence can have a 'misleading aura of certainty'."].)
3 II. FENTON SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM GIVING ANY TESTIMONY
ABOUT THE “SEVERITY” OF ANY COLLISION BECAUSE HE
4 RELATES IT TO INJURY CAUSATION
5 Mr. Fenton already testified that in deposition that he intends to tell the jury that the
6 alleged “second impact was a severe impact…. Because we know that the dash panel and steering
7 wheel in Impact 2 is pushed into the occupant compartment making contact with the driver.”
8 (Fenton Depo. at 46:13-22 (emphasis added).) Caltrans also attempted to elicit this opinion at the
9 402 hearing, as described above. At trial, Caltrans counsel unsuccessfully attempted to elicit
10 biomechanical opinions about the effect of the dash intrusion and deformation of the steering
11 wheel to Mr. Huang’s injuries from Mr. Castaneda. Caltrans’ transparent baiting was fruitless
12 because as Mr. Castaneda repeatedly testified, these are matters for a biomechanical engineer.
13 This Court barred Caltrans from augmenting its expert disclosure to include a
14 biomechanical engineer and prohibited Mr. Fenton to respond to any biomechanical expert in this
15 case. If Fenton is permitted to opine that an alleged impact with the Mazda was “severe,” the
16 Court would be inviting the jurors to speculate that such an alleged collision was “severe” enough
17 produced fatal injuries in contravention of the explicit jury instructions to the contrary. Permitting
18 Fenton to testify about the “severity” of any collision necessarily afoul of this Court’s order
19 precluding Caltrans from talking “about anything to do with the injury.” (See Court’s Order, Trial
20 Tr. at 387:16-21.)
21 III. MR. FENTON CANNOT INTRODUCE NEW OPINIONS OR EXHIBITS THAT
WERE NOT PRODUCED AT HIS DEPOSITION
22
A. The Court Should Exclude the New Powerpoint Slides Shown at the 402
23 Hearing and Any Other New Materials Created After His Deposition
24 At the 402 hearing, Mr. Fenton showed brand new PowerPoint slides and referred to
25 literature related to the PC-Crash program that were not produced at the time of his deposition.
26 (Trial Tr. at 337:2 – 339:23.) At his deposition, Mr. Fenton was specifically asked about any
27 support for using the PC-Crash program to make calculations. At his deposition, he did not have
28 any support for this methodology. (Fenton Depo. at 189:2 – 190:10.) However, at the 402 hearing,
LAW OFFICES OF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY
& SCHOENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
7
650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT
26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
(415) 981-7210
STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663
1 Mr. Fenton claimed that the PC-Crash program has been validated “for this type of analysis both
2 by publications and in textbooks established by the Society of Automotive Engineers, and
3 validation testing done by the manufacturers and developers of PC-Crash.” (Trial Tr. at 337:25 –
4 338:1.)
5 At trial, Caltrans counsel asked Mr. Castaneda about his opinions in response to Mr.
6 Fenton and improperly suggested that he had new opinions in violation of the expert discovery
7 rules. Contrary to Caltrans’ insinuation, Mr. Castaneda did not offer any new opinions. He had the
8 same opinions, namely that the Tesla’s collision with the broken attenuator caused the front end of
9 the Tesla and its component parts to intrude a “minimum of 18 inches” into the driver
10 compartment space. That opinion did not change, even after reading Mr. Fenton’s deposition.
11 Based upon Caltrans’ examination of Mr. Fenton at the 402 hearing and its cross-
12 examination of Mr. Castaneda, it is anticipated that Caltrans will attempt to solicit new opinions in
13 violation of Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907. But Caltrans has no legal
14 basis for doing so. In fact, Caltrans would only agree to produce Mr. Fenton for deposition after
15 Plaintiffs and Tesla’s accident reconstruction experts were deposed.
16 Caltrans originally set Mr. Fenton’s deposition for the date of June 27, 2023, but “subject
17 to the corresponding plaintiff expert being produced first.” (McDevitt Decl., Exhibit 3, Email
18 from Landa Low to all counsel.) Upon learning that Mr. Castaneda was not available until June
19 28, Caltrans rescheduled Mr. Fenton’s deposition to July 5. (Id., Exhibit 4, Email from Rosemary
20 Love to Stephen Fenton.) Mr. Castaneda was then rescheduled to June 29 and Mr. Fenton’s
21 deposition remained set for July 5.
22 Mr. Castaneda’s deposition was concluded at 6:18 p.m. on Thursday, June 29. An hour and
23 a half later, Caltrans forwarded a link containing Fenton’s expert file, which was required to be
24 delivered within 3 business days before his deposition. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2034.415.) The
25 Fourth of July (Tuesday) was a national holiday. Plaintiffs’ attempt to download the entirety of
26 Mr. Fenton’s file was cut short by Caltrans’ sudden deactivation of the web link. (McDevitt Decl.
27 ¶¶ 8-11, Exhibit 5, Email from Rosemary Love to all counsel.)
28 Caltrans’ counsel eventually offered dates in August for Mr. Fenton’s deposition but
LAW OFFICES OF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY
& SCHOENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
8
650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT
26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
(415) 981-7210
STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663
1 insisted that the “dates are contingent on concluding Mr. Walker’s deposition prior to Fenton’s
2 deposition.” (Id., Exhibit 6, Email from Rosemary Love to all counsel.) Mr. Walker is the accident
3 reconstructionist that was retained by Tesla. Caltrans insisted that all of the other accident
4 reconstruction experts in the case be deposed before Mr. Fenton. Mr. Walker was deposed on July
5 14, 2023. Mr. Fenton’s deposition was finally rescheduled to August 14, 2023.
6 On August 9, 2023, Caltrans’ counsel circulated an email with a new link to Mr. Fenton’s
7 file. There were differences in the file that was produced on August 9th and the portions of the file
8 that Plaintiffs had been able to download on June 30th. Plaintiffs could not discern the full extent
9 of the differences because neither Mr. Fenton nor Caltrans produced the complete file that was
10 originally sent to all parties on June 29, 2023.
11 However, Plaintiffs were able to determine that Mr. Fenton made substantial changes to his
12 PowerPoint slides between June 29 and August 9. For example, Mr. Fenton deleted 30 slides that
13 had been in the prior version. As of August 9, the deleted slides were not part of his file. Plaintiffs
14 could not tell what else had been deleted from the original file that was deactivated on June 29.
15 Furthermore, Mr. Fenton added 42 new slides to the PowerPoint presentation. And he
16 updated a separate set of slides in a folder entitled “Rebuttal.” He also created an entirely new
17 PowerPoint slide deck in that same folder named “Walker & Exponent Crash Test”. (McDevitt
18 Decl. ¶¶11-12.)
19 As the last accident reconstruction expert to be deposed, Mr. Fenton has no excuse for
20 failing to have completed his work and to have given complete opinions at his deposition. He
21 cannot introduce new work product for the first time at trial.
22 B. Mr. Fenton Did Not Calculate the Deformation or Damage to the Tesla in His
Hypothetical “What If” Scenario.
23
At the time of his deposition, Mr. Fenton admitted that he did not know “if [the Tesla]
24
would be fully intact” after hitting a hypothetical functional crash attenuator. (Fenton Depo. at
25
201:7-15.) He goes on to admit that he doesn’t know “how much intrusion or deformation there
26
would have been into the occupant compartment.” (Id. at 201:23-25.)
27
Plaintiffs anticipate that Mr. Fenton will testify about the damage to the Tesla vehicle at
28
LAW OFFICES OF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY
& SCHOENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
9
650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT
26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
(415) 981-7210
STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663
trial, even though he had not done the work before his deposition on August 14, 2023. Counsel
and Mr. Fenton should be instructed not to introduce any new opinions or testimony about work
performed after Mr. Fenton’s deposition.
Dated: May 12, 2024 ALKUP ELODIA ELLY CHOENBERGER
By:
MICHAEL A. KELLY
DORIS CHENG
ANDREW P. McDEVITT
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
LAW OFFICES OF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
SCHOENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT
26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
(415) 981-7210
STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663
PROOF OF SERVICE
Huang v. Tesla, Inc., et. al.
Case No. 19CV346663
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
I am employed in the county where the mailing took place, My business address is
650 California Street, 26th Floor, City and County of San Francisco, CA 94108 2615
On the date set forth below, I caused to be served true copies of the following
document(s) described as
PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT
DEFENSE EXPERT STEPHEN FENTON S TRIAL TESTIMONY
to:
Jeanne Scherer, Acting Chief Counsel Attorneys For Defendant
G. Michael Harrington, Deputy Chief STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Counsel hone: 510 433 9100
Landa Low, Deputy Attorney : 510 9167
Rosemary Love, Deputy Attorney mail landa.low@dot.ca.gov
Philip DiBoise, Deputy Attorney rosemary.love@dot.ca.gov
Caltrans Legal Division Philip.DiBoise@dot.ca.gov
Physical Address: maria.cordonero@dot.ca.gov
111 Grand Ave., Suite 11 100 genoveva.mercado@dot.ca.gov
Oakland, CA 94612
Mailing:
PO Box 24325
Oakland, CA 94623 1325
B. Mark Fong Counsel for Plaintiffs
Seema Bhatt Phone: (415) 788 9000
Ember J. Oparowski Fax: (415) 398 3887
Minami Tamaki LLP MFong@MinamiTamaki.com
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 825 SBhatt@MinamiTamaki.com
San Francisco, CA 94104 eoparowski@minamitamaki.com
ESullivan@minamitamaki.com
EEverett@MinamiTamaki.com
BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant to CCP 1010.6(e), I caused
the above titled document(s) to be electronically served on the persons at the
electronic service addresses listed.
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 13, 2024, at San Francisco, California
Karina Lara
LAW OFFICES OF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
CHOENBERGER
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
650 CALIFORNIA STREET
STEPHEN FENTON’S TRIAL TESTIMONY CASE NO. 19CV346663
26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
(415) 981
Preview
B. MARK FONG, ESQ. (SBN 99672) mfong@minamitamaki.com SEEMA BHATT, ESQ. (SBN 275278) sbhatt@minamitamaki.com EMBER OPAROWSKI, ESQ. (SBN 290086) eoparowski@minamitamaki.com MINAMI TAMAKI LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, Ca 94108-4903 Tel: (415) 788-9000 Fax: (415) 398-3887 MICHAEL A. KELLY (State Bar #71460) mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com DORIS CHENG (State Bar #197731) dcheng@walkuplawoffice.com ANDREW P. McDEVITT (State Bar #271371) amcdevitt@walkuplawoffice.com WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, Ca 94108 Tel: (415) 981-7210 Fax: (415) 391-6965 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS SZ HUA HUANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WEI LUN HUANG, DECEASED; TRINITY HUANG, A MINOR; TRISTAN HUANG, A MINOR SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as Case No. 19CV346663 successor in interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased; TRINITY HUANG, a minor; PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL TRISTAN HUANG, a minor, MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT STEPHEN Plaintiffs, FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY Action Filed: April 26, 2019 Trial Date: March 18, 2024 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants. Plaintiffs request that Caltrans counsel instruct its accident reconstruction expert Stephen Fenton as follows: PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663 1 (1) Based upon the Court’s order during the motions in limine hearings, Counsel and Mr. 2 Fenton are prohibited from eliciting or offering any testimony or evidence about injuries to Mr. 3 Huang, including any contact between any object and Mr. Huang’s body; 4 (2) Based upon the Court’s order during the motions in limine hearings, Counsel and Mr. 5 Fenton are prohibited from eliciting or offering any testimony, evidence, or inference that Mr. 6 Huang would have been killed by an alleged secondary impact between the Tesla and Mazda if the 7 crash attenuator had been functional; 8 (3) Based upon the Court’s order during the motions in limine hearings, Mr. Fenton can 9 only respond to the accident reconstruction experts in this case (i.e., Rene Castaneda and James 10 Walker), and not any of the biomechanical experts (i.e., Dr. Mark Shattuck and Lars Reinhart). 11 Based upon these rulings, Plaintiffs renew the motion to prohibit Mr. Fenton from giving 12 any opinions about the “severity” of an alleged collision between the Mazda and Tesla, which the 13 Court did not rule upon at the time of the hearing. 14 Additionally, Plaintiffs move to preclude Mr. Fenton from introducing any new opinions 15 or PowerPoint slides as he attempted to do at the 402 hearing. Plaintiffs also wish to alert the 16 Court that Mr. Fenton did not perform any analysis as to the extent or nature of the damage to the 17 Tesla after impact with a hypothetical functional attenuator. He cannot now offer opinions about 18 the extent, nature or significance of any such damage, as the same would violate Kennemur and 19 the Court’s Order barring any testimony about injury or biomechanics. 20 I. CALTRANS AND FENTON ARE PROHIBITED FROM ADDRESSING ANY TOPIC RELATED TO IMPACT ON MR. HUANG’S BODY 21 A. It Is Anticipated that Fenton Will Seek to Introduce Testimony About Forces 22 and Impact to Mr. Huang’s Body in Violation of the Court Order 23 During the 402 hearing, Caltrans counsel told the Court that “the only thing Mr. Fenton is 24 qualified to do and which we’ve attempted to do is rebut the opinions of the opposing 25 reconstruction experts" and Caltrans' counsel affirmed the Court’s query that Fenton was only 26 being called for rebuttal and impeachment. (Declaration of Andrew McDevitt ["McDevitt Decl."], 27 Exhibit 1, Trial Tr. at 374:22-28 [emphasis added].) Mr. Fenton cannot rebut or opine on the 28 testimony of Dr. Mark Shattuck, a biomechanical PhD, who this Court has already qualified to LAW OFFICES OF WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2 650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 (415) 981-7210 STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663 1 testify on biomechanical issues, injury causation, medical causation, and medical diagnoses – 2 areas outside Mr. Fenton's expertise. 3 Mr. Fenton’s testimony was struck in its entirety in another trial wherein he was testifying 4 on behalf of Caltrans and violated the motion in limine order. In the matter of Wolkoff v. State of 5 California Department of Transportation, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CIV 6 481154, Hon. Steven Dylina found that Mr. Fenton was “trying to sneak in an opinion” in 7 violation of the Court’s orders. Judge Dylina struck Mr. Fenton’s testimony and instructed the 8 jury: “Mr. Fenton just testified. The Court has ordered his testimony stricken. I made certain 9 orders as to Mr. Fenton’s testimony, and those orders have been violated. So you are to totally 10 disregard any of Mr. Fenton’s testimony.” (McDevitt Decl., Exhibit 7, Wolkoff Trial Transcript at 11 2144:7 – 2154:17.) 12 Despite Caltrans counsel’s attempt to solicit biomechanical opinions from Mr. Castaneda 13 during her examination, Mr. Castaneda testified that impact or injury to Mr. Huang’s body was 14 outside his area of expertise: 15 Q.· Okay.· And now, assuming the driver is still seated in that seat, you would expect that crossmember to strike the driver in the lower extremities; correct? 16 A.· You know, I haven't addressed those.· I would direct anything with occupant 17 contact to a biomechanist, which I haven't done any work in that regard, Counsel. 18 Q.· And would that biomechanical person be Dr. Shattuck? 19 A.· Yes. 20 Q.· You worked with Dr. Shattuck on this case; didn't you? 21 A.· I did. 22 Q.· And did you work together to orient the components in this photograph? 23 A.· Dr. Shattuck was present at the time of this inspection, and a separate inspection as well. 24 Q.· All right. So we have heard from the coroner in this case, who 25 diagrammed all the injuries, and I can represent to you that she did not indicate there were any fractures in the lower extremities.· Any reason to 26 disagree with that? 27 A.· I think that's -- I can't disagree or agree because that's outside the area of my work. 28 LAW OFFICES OF WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 3 650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 (415) 981-7210 STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663 1 (Trial Tr. at 2758:28). Caltrans further probed Mr. Castaneda: 2 Q.· All right. And you would note -- or you noted that there were deformities to the steering wheel; correct? 3 A.· I did note that in my documentation. 4 Q.· Okay.· And can you describe where those deformities are in the steering 5 wheel. 6 A.· Well, you know, I would leave some of those, because it was examined in much greater detail by Dr. Shattuck, who is addressing the biomechanics of this. 7 My focus was more on the structural components of this.· So without looking at photos, I couldn't give you a better description, Counsel. 8 ·Q.· Okay.· Well, in fact, wasn't it deformed at the top portion of the steering 9 wheel? 10 A.· Again, without looking at my photos, Counsel, I don't feel comfortable telling you that.· If I can bring them up, I can tell you where the damages are. 11 Q.· All right. What about on the bottom portion of the steering wheel? 12 A.· Same answer, Counsel. 13 Q.· Okay.· But you did note that it was deformed; right? 14 A.· There's deformation, correct. 15 Q.· Right. And in other words, if the steering wheel is on a plane, some of the 16 portions of the steering wheel are now bent out of plane; correct? 17 A.· They would be bent out of plane, correct. 18 Q.· Do you know how that damage to the steering wheel occurred? 19 A.· I think we're getting into an area, Counsel, where I essentially hand off to the biomechanist because they're dealing with the occupant kinematics and person-to- 20 vehicle interaction, and I definitely don't want to get into that area because I've not really worked that up. 21 Q.· So is it your belief that the deformation occurred as a result of occupant 22 interaction with the steering wheel? 23 A.· I don't have an opinion one way or the other right now, Counsel.· Again, this is something that would be, I think, a better question for a different expert. 24 (Trial Tr. at 2800:5 – 2801:16.) 25 The Court can infer from Caltrans’ cross-examination that it intends to elicit opinions from 26 Mr. Fenton about the forces to Mr. Huang’s head and face due to an alleged impact between the 27 Mazda and the Tesla. During his deposition, Mr. Fenton admitted that he is not able to offer any 28 LAW OFFICES OF WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 4 650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 (415) 981-7210 STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663 1 opinion about Mr. Huang’s injuries in connection with any impact against any object, but he 2 nevertheless wanted to opine: 3 “I’m just saying that that second impact was a severe impact. And to neglect it would be improper. Because we know that the dash panel and steering wheel in 4 Impact 2 is pushed into the occupant compartment making contact with the driver.” 5 (McDevitt Decl., Exhibit 2, Fenton Depo. at 46:1-22.) 6 B. The Court’s Order at the 402 Hearing 7 This Court specifically ordered that Mr. Fenton cannot opine, and Caltrans cannot argue, 8 that Mr. Huang would have died even if the crash attenuator had been fully functional. (Trial Tr. at 9 377:2-11.) In this respect, the Court has restricted Mr. Fenton’s testimony to non-medical, non- 10 injury causation rebuttal accident reconstruction expert, but has not yet ruled on whether he can 11 give an opinion about the severity of an alleged second collision with the Mazda. 12 During the 402 hearing, the Court sustained Plaintiffs and Tesla’s objections to Ms. Low’s 13 question: “Did you form any opinion regarding the severity of the driver’s impact with the 14 interior of the vehicle?” (Trial Tr. at 344:11-17.) Mr. Fenton nevertheless injected “I’m just 15 talking about kinematics and contact based on vehicle damage and injuries suffered by the driver.” 16 (See id. at 347:19-25.) 17 After the 402 hearing, the Court ruled: 18 All right. So right now it seems like my current ruling that, at this point, Mr. Fenton can testify as to the what-if scenario. He can't talk about anything to do with 19 injury. 20 I'll think about the severe -- we have time before the trial, but he can testify as to the forces and delta v and all that stuff. 21 22 (Id., at 387:16-21 (emphasis added).) 23 Here, the Court must act as a gatekeeper to ensure that Mr. Fenton’s opinion testimony 24 before the jury does not exceed the limits imposed by the Court's in limine ruling or veer outside 25 his area of expertise. As such, Mr. Fenton must be precluded from offering evidence, opinion, 26 testimony, inference, or argument as to: 27 1. Human anatomy; 28 2. The mechanics of physical injury experienced by Mr. Huang; LAW OFFICES OF WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 5 650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 (415) 981-7210 STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663 1 3. The nature, extent, origin or volume of bleeding/blood loss experienced by Mr. 2 Huang; 3 4. The nature, extent, cause of any tissue injury suffered by Mr Huang; 4 5. The injury producing movement(s) or intrusions of any Tesla components causing 5 physical injury to Mr Huang; 6 6. The forces or impact on Mr. Huang’s body due to the Tesla’s contact with the 7 broken attenuator; 8 7. The presence, absence or extent of any physical injury or imprint on Mr. Huang’s 9 body in connection with the hypothetical collision between the Tesla and a functional attenuator; 10 8. The potential or actual physical consequences to Mr. Huang’s body in connection 11 with any hypothetical collision with a functioning attenuator (the so called “what-if” scenario); 12 9. The mechanism, sequence and injury producing events allegedly causing injury or 13 death to Mr. Huang in a hypothetical collision involving a functioning attenuator (so called “what- 14 if” scenario) 15 10. Injury producing forces or contacts in any subsequent impact with cars in a 16 hypothetical “what-if” scenario. 17 Plaintiffs further request that the Court preclude Mr. Fenton from commenting, showing, 18 explaining, or using medical illustrations or medical exhibits in response to Dr. Shattuck or Lars 19 Reinhart’s testimony. 20 This Court already admonished Mr. Fenton and Caltrans' counsel that he is not to provide 21 opinions beyond those specifically limited to rebutting and impeaching Plaintiffs' accident 22 reconstructionist. The purpose of such in limine orders is to “avoid the obviously futile attempt to 23 unring the bell in the event a motion to strike is granted in the proceedings before the jury.” (Hyatt 24 v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337; Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 25 Cal.App.4th 659, 669.) Because expert testimony carries considerable weight with the jury but 26 may be misleading, it is imperative that the Court ensure that Mr. Fenton's testimony is contained 27 to the narrow parameters previously issued and not permit him to interpose improper opinion 28 testimony before the jury. (See, e.g., People v. Kelly (1976) ["Lay jurors tend to give considerable LAW OFFICES OF WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 6 650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 (415) 981-7210 STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663 1 weight to 'scientific' evidence when presented by 'experts' with impressive credentials," and such 2 evidence can have a 'misleading aura of certainty'."].) 3 II. FENTON SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM GIVING ANY TESTIMONY ABOUT THE “SEVERITY” OF ANY COLLISION BECAUSE HE 4 RELATES IT TO INJURY CAUSATION 5 Mr. Fenton already testified that in deposition that he intends to tell the jury that the 6 alleged “second impact was a severe impact…. Because we know that the dash panel and steering 7 wheel in Impact 2 is pushed into the occupant compartment making contact with the driver.” 8 (Fenton Depo. at 46:13-22 (emphasis added).) Caltrans also attempted to elicit this opinion at the 9 402 hearing, as described above. At trial, Caltrans counsel unsuccessfully attempted to elicit 10 biomechanical opinions about the effect of the dash intrusion and deformation of the steering 11 wheel to Mr. Huang’s injuries from Mr. Castaneda. Caltrans’ transparent baiting was fruitless 12 because as Mr. Castaneda repeatedly testified, these are matters for a biomechanical engineer. 13 This Court barred Caltrans from augmenting its expert disclosure to include a 14 biomechanical engineer and prohibited Mr. Fenton to respond to any biomechanical expert in this 15 case. If Fenton is permitted to opine that an alleged impact with the Mazda was “severe,” the 16 Court would be inviting the jurors to speculate that such an alleged collision was “severe” enough 17 produced fatal injuries in contravention of the explicit jury instructions to the contrary. Permitting 18 Fenton to testify about the “severity” of any collision necessarily afoul of this Court’s order 19 precluding Caltrans from talking “about anything to do with the injury.” (See Court’s Order, Trial 20 Tr. at 387:16-21.) 21 III. MR. FENTON CANNOT INTRODUCE NEW OPINIONS OR EXHIBITS THAT WERE NOT PRODUCED AT HIS DEPOSITION 22 A. The Court Should Exclude the New Powerpoint Slides Shown at the 402 23 Hearing and Any Other New Materials Created After His Deposition 24 At the 402 hearing, Mr. Fenton showed brand new PowerPoint slides and referred to 25 literature related to the PC-Crash program that were not produced at the time of his deposition. 26 (Trial Tr. at 337:2 – 339:23.) At his deposition, Mr. Fenton was specifically asked about any 27 support for using the PC-Crash program to make calculations. At his deposition, he did not have 28 any support for this methodology. (Fenton Depo. at 189:2 – 190:10.) However, at the 402 hearing, LAW OFFICES OF WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 7 650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 (415) 981-7210 STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663 1 Mr. Fenton claimed that the PC-Crash program has been validated “for this type of analysis both 2 by publications and in textbooks established by the Society of Automotive Engineers, and 3 validation testing done by the manufacturers and developers of PC-Crash.” (Trial Tr. at 337:25 – 4 338:1.) 5 At trial, Caltrans counsel asked Mr. Castaneda about his opinions in response to Mr. 6 Fenton and improperly suggested that he had new opinions in violation of the expert discovery 7 rules. Contrary to Caltrans’ insinuation, Mr. Castaneda did not offer any new opinions. He had the 8 same opinions, namely that the Tesla’s collision with the broken attenuator caused the front end of 9 the Tesla and its component parts to intrude a “minimum of 18 inches” into the driver 10 compartment space. That opinion did not change, even after reading Mr. Fenton’s deposition. 11 Based upon Caltrans’ examination of Mr. Fenton at the 402 hearing and its cross- 12 examination of Mr. Castaneda, it is anticipated that Caltrans will attempt to solicit new opinions in 13 violation of Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907. But Caltrans has no legal 14 basis for doing so. In fact, Caltrans would only agree to produce Mr. Fenton for deposition after 15 Plaintiffs and Tesla’s accident reconstruction experts were deposed. 16 Caltrans originally set Mr. Fenton’s deposition for the date of June 27, 2023, but “subject 17 to the corresponding plaintiff expert being produced first.” (McDevitt Decl., Exhibit 3, Email 18 from Landa Low to all counsel.) Upon learning that Mr. Castaneda was not available until June 19 28, Caltrans rescheduled Mr. Fenton’s deposition to July 5. (Id., Exhibit 4, Email from Rosemary 20 Love to Stephen Fenton.) Mr. Castaneda was then rescheduled to June 29 and Mr. Fenton’s 21 deposition remained set for July 5. 22 Mr. Castaneda’s deposition was concluded at 6:18 p.m. on Thursday, June 29. An hour and 23 a half later, Caltrans forwarded a link containing Fenton’s expert file, which was required to be 24 delivered within 3 business days before his deposition. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2034.415.) The 25 Fourth of July (Tuesday) was a national holiday. Plaintiffs’ attempt to download the entirety of 26 Mr. Fenton’s file was cut short by Caltrans’ sudden deactivation of the web link. (McDevitt Decl. 27 ¶¶ 8-11, Exhibit 5, Email from Rosemary Love to all counsel.) 28 Caltrans’ counsel eventually offered dates in August for Mr. Fenton’s deposition but LAW OFFICES OF WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 8 650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 (415) 981-7210 STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663 1 insisted that the “dates are contingent on concluding Mr. Walker’s deposition prior to Fenton’s 2 deposition.” (Id., Exhibit 6, Email from Rosemary Love to all counsel.) Mr. Walker is the accident 3 reconstructionist that was retained by Tesla. Caltrans insisted that all of the other accident 4 reconstruction experts in the case be deposed before Mr. Fenton. Mr. Walker was deposed on July 5 14, 2023. Mr. Fenton’s deposition was finally rescheduled to August 14, 2023. 6 On August 9, 2023, Caltrans’ counsel circulated an email with a new link to Mr. Fenton’s 7 file. There were differences in the file that was produced on August 9th and the portions of the file 8 that Plaintiffs had been able to download on June 30th. Plaintiffs could not discern the full extent 9 of the differences because neither Mr. Fenton nor Caltrans produced the complete file that was 10 originally sent to all parties on June 29, 2023. 11 However, Plaintiffs were able to determine that Mr. Fenton made substantial changes to his 12 PowerPoint slides between June 29 and August 9. For example, Mr. Fenton deleted 30 slides that 13 had been in the prior version. As of August 9, the deleted slides were not part of his file. Plaintiffs 14 could not tell what else had been deleted from the original file that was deactivated on June 29. 15 Furthermore, Mr. Fenton added 42 new slides to the PowerPoint presentation. And he 16 updated a separate set of slides in a folder entitled “Rebuttal.” He also created an entirely new 17 PowerPoint slide deck in that same folder named “Walker & Exponent Crash Test”. (McDevitt 18 Decl. ¶¶11-12.) 19 As the last accident reconstruction expert to be deposed, Mr. Fenton has no excuse for 20 failing to have completed his work and to have given complete opinions at his deposition. He 21 cannot introduce new work product for the first time at trial. 22 B. Mr. Fenton Did Not Calculate the Deformation or Damage to the Tesla in His Hypothetical “What If” Scenario. 23 At the time of his deposition, Mr. Fenton admitted that he did not know “if [the Tesla] 24 would be fully intact” after hitting a hypothetical functional crash attenuator. (Fenton Depo. at 25 201:7-15.) He goes on to admit that he doesn’t know “how much intrusion or deformation there 26 would have been into the occupant compartment.” (Id. at 201:23-25.) 27 Plaintiffs anticipate that Mr. Fenton will testify about the damage to the Tesla vehicle at 28 LAW OFFICES OF WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 9 650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 (415) 981-7210 STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663 trial, even though he had not done the work before his deposition on August 14, 2023. Counsel and Mr. Fenton should be instructed not to introduce any new opinions or testimony about work performed after Mr. Fenton’s deposition. Dated: May 12, 2024 ALKUP ELODIA ELLY CHOENBERGER By: MICHAEL A. KELLY DORIS CHENG ANDREW P. McDEVITT Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS LAW OFFICES OF ALKUP ELODIA ELLY SCHOENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 650 CALIFORNIA STREET PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 (415) 981-7210 STEPHEN FENTON'S TRIAL TESTIMONY - CASE NO. 19CV346663 PROOF OF SERVICE Huang v. Tesla, Inc., et. al. Case No. 19CV346663 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the county where the mailing took place, My business address is 650 California Street, 26th Floor, City and County of San Francisco, CA 94108 2615 On the date set forth below, I caused to be served true copies of the following document(s) described as PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT STEPHEN FENTON S TRIAL TESTIMONY to: Jeanne Scherer, Acting Chief Counsel Attorneys For Defendant G. Michael Harrington, Deputy Chief STATE OF CALIFORNIA Counsel hone: 510 433 9100 Landa Low, Deputy Attorney : 510 9167 Rosemary Love, Deputy Attorney mail landa.low@dot.ca.gov Philip DiBoise, Deputy Attorney rosemary.love@dot.ca.gov Caltrans Legal Division Philip.DiBoise@dot.ca.gov Physical Address: maria.cordonero@dot.ca.gov 111 Grand Ave., Suite 11 100 genoveva.mercado@dot.ca.gov Oakland, CA 94612 Mailing: PO Box 24325 Oakland, CA 94623 1325 B. Mark Fong Counsel for Plaintiffs Seema Bhatt Phone: (415) 788 9000 Ember J. Oparowski Fax: (415) 398 3887 Minami Tamaki LLP MFong@MinamiTamaki.com 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 825 SBhatt@MinamiTamaki.com San Francisco, CA 94104 eoparowski@minamitamaki.com ESullivan@minamitamaki.com EEverett@MinamiTamaki.com BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant to CCP 1010.6(e), I caused the above titled document(s) to be electronically served on the persons at the electronic service addresses listed. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 13, 2024, at San Francisco, California Karina Lara LAW OFFICES OF ALKUP ELODIA ELLY CHOENBERGER PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO LIMIT DEFENSE EXPERT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 650 CALIFORNIA STREET STEPHEN FENTON’S TRIAL TESTIMONY CASE NO. 19CV346663 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 (415) 981