[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-259946-105":53,"doc-detail-259946-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","longshoreupdatetisdalevmarquettetransportationopinionexperts","LongshoreUpdateTisdalevMarquetteTransportationopinionexperts","","Order and Reasons in a U.S. District Court case addresses three motions seeking to exclude expert testimony. The court considers requests by the defendant and the plaintiff to exclude or limit opinions offered by specific maritime experts. Background recounts the plaintiff’s employment aboard the vessel M/V ST JOHN, the alleged injury in 2019, and claims brought under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Applicable law focuses on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert framework for reliability and admissibility.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/longshoreupdatetisdalevmarquettetransportationopinionexperts/259946/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/longshoreupdatetisdalevmarquettetransportationopinionexperts/259946.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Aurora","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-27","2026-09-13",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What motions are at issue in the Order and Reasons?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"The court addresses three motions to exclude expert evidence: two by the defendant and one by the plaintiff seeking to exclude or limit expert testimony.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"What legal standard governs expert testimony in this case?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs admissibility, applying the Daubert reliability framework to ensure expert testimony is relevant and based on sufficient facts, reliable methods, and proper application to the case.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What claims did the plaintiff bring after the 2019 injury?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"The plaintiff sued under the Jones Act and general maritime law, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness, including claims related to short-handed conditions, orders outside job duties, and unsafe conditions aboard the vessel.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},259946,1790126872,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":35,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":141},4810365810221,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Case 2:22-cv-00237-GGG-MBN Document 285 Filed 05/07/24 Page 1 of 17  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nEASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA  \nWILLIAM TISDALE  \nVERSUS  \nMARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, LLC, et al.  \nCIVIL ACTION NO: 22-00237  \nSECTION: T (5)  \nORDER and REASONS  \nBefore the Court are three motions to exclude expert evidence. Defendant Marquette Transportation Company (“Marquette’) has filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Susan M. Bowley. R. Doc. 205. Marquette has also filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Capt. Larry Strouse. R. Doc. 249. Plaintiff William Tisdale has filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude or Alternatively Limit Expert Testimony of Capt. Ronald L. Campana. R. Doc.  \n252. The Court will take up each of these motions in turn.  \nBACKGROUND  \nPlaintiff is a resident of Mississippi who was employed by Defendant, which is incorporated in Delaware, on March 13, 2019. On that date, Plaintiff was assigned to the M/V ST JOHN, owned by Defendant, working as an uncovered steersman in waters near the Houston Ship Channel. He was instructed by the captain of the M/V ST JOHN, Captain Freddie Greenhouse, to perform certain deckhand work as the vessel conducted barge fleeting work. Plaintiff was injured when he picked up a lock line on the starboard side of a barge in the ST JOHN’s tow, the MTC- 1363, and felt a pop in his lower back/hip on his right side. Plaintiff reported the accident immediately after it occurred, and a “Personal Injury/Illness Report” was completed. Plaintiff  \nCase 2:22-cv-00237-GGG-MBN Document 285 Filed 05/07/24 Page 2 of 17  \nreceived an ice pack and over-the-counter medication to help with his back pain after the accident. He did not perform any work on the vessel after the accident. Plaintiff underwent further treatment as set forth in the Court’s Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (R. Doc. 129) .  \nPlaintiff filed suit against Defendant in February of 2022 under the Jones Act and general maritime law, alleging his injury and damages were due to the negligence of the defendant and the unseaworthiness of its vessel. He asserted (1) the vessel was short-handed because it was one deckhand short of a full crew; (2) the captain ordered him to perform the duties of the absent deckhand and to work outside his job classification; and (3) he was not fit for that type of work because he had become “deconditioned” after many months of not performing such type of work.  \nR. Doc. 1, p. 3. He also claimed (1) that he had been working in a narrow passageway on the side of the barge, MTC-1363 ; (2) that the lock line he was ordered to move was coiled and hanging at shoulder height from the cover top barge; (3) that the lock line weighed over 100 pounds and was saturated from the rain; and (4) that, when he lifted and carried the lock line, he felt a pop in his lower back, which then gave out with excruciating pain. R. Doc. 1, p. 4.  \nPlaintiff asserted various bases for negligence, including (1) negligence in ordering Plaintiff to perform work outside of his job classification; (2) negligence in failing to provide aseaworthy vessel and adequate crew; (3) failure to provide proper safety equipment and appurtenances; (4) exposing Plaintiff to unreasonable risk of injury and harm while serving aboard the vessel; (5) not providing Plaintiff with enough equipment, assistance, and manpower to do the tasks assigned; (6) failure to warn Plaintiff of dangers and needlessly exposing Plaintiff to nonapparent dangers; and (7) negligence implied in these allegations and those that may be shown at trial on the merits. R. Doc. 1, p. 5. He asserted similar bases for unseaworthiness, including: (1)  \nCase 2:22-cv-00237-GGG-MBN Document 285 Filed 05/07/24 Page 3 of 17  \ndefective machinery equipment and appurtenances; (2) furnishing an undermanned vessel, failing to man and crew the vessel properly; (3) vessel not properly equipped; (4) inadequate equipment and safety devices, (5) unsaf","cbCaiv0SefaViXhJ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiv0SefaViXhJ","pdf",205873,"English","# Order and Reasons\n## Motions to Exclude Expert Evidence\n## Background\n## Applicable Law","[{\"question\":\"What motions are at issue in the Order and Reasons?\",\"answer\":\"The court addresses three motions to exclude expert evidence: two by the defendant and one by the plaintiff seeking to exclude or limit expert testimony.\"},{\"question\":\"What legal standard governs expert testimony in this case?\",\"answer\":\"Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs admissibility, applying the Daubert reliability framework to ensure expert testimony is relevant and based on sufficient facts, reliable methods, and proper application to the case.\"},{\"question\":\"What claims did the plaintiff bring after the 2019 injury?\",\"answer\":\"The plaintiff sued under the Jones Act and general maritime law, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness, including claims related to short-handed conditions, orders outside job duties, and unsafe conditions aboard the vessel.\"}]","LongshoreUpdateTisdalevMarquetteTransportationopinionexperts | PDF",1789337407,6]