Evidence – Motion to exclude transmission expert is rejected

Where Ford Motor Company moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert in a lawsuit over allegedly defective automatic transmissions, but the court rejected each of its arguments, its motion was rejected.

Background

Plaintiff James Dolan filed suit on behalf of himself and a Virginia class of consumers against Ford Motor Company, claiming that it knowingly designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised, marketed, sold and/or leased vehicles from 2017 to the present with defective automatic transmissions.

The plaintiffs identified Dr Jurgen Greiner as their expert on the central feature of their claims: the defective transmission. This matter is before the court on defendant’s renewed motion to exclude his testimony.

Analysis

Defendant finds fault in the fact that the evaluation system used here was developed by Dr. Greiner and his team(s). Defendant cites no authority that would foreclose use of an evaluative system actually used in design, development and manufacturing settings for two decades because an expert witness was one of the designers of the evaluative system.

Defendant fastens this component of its reliability argument on the fact that Dr. Greiner did not personally test the 10R80 transmission in the class vehicles. Instead, Dr. Greiner relied on the analyses and testing of the 10R80 transmission done by defendant’s own engineers as reflected in defendant’s own documents. In fact, there is no opinion tendered by Dr. Greiner that does not find some support in analyses previously made, or testing previously done, by defendant’s own engineers, or (most often, and), in documents created by knowledgeable engineers and executives.

While testing is important to support the opinions of engineering experts, Dr. Greiner need not have reinvented the wheel by conducting his own testing. He was entitled to rely on what defendant had already done.

Facts or data

Defendant seems to find insufficiency of facts or data by pointing to all the defendant documents that were examined by Dr. Greiner and arguing that those documents were “cherry-picked.” Not so. Dr. Greiner worked with plaintiffs’ counsel by instructing counsel to secure the kind of documents that Dr. Greiner identified as pertinent to the analysis he was to make. Dr. Greiner then determined which of the retrieved documents to use in his reports.

Defendant next asserts “insufficiency” because the warranty claims information on which Dr. Greiner relies is assertedly beyond his expertise. To the extent that this objection involves Dr. Greiner’s rebuttal to Mr. Fyie’s report, it is no longer pertinent because Mr. Fyie’s report has been excluded. And Dr. Greiner did consider warranty claim data in forming his defective transmission opinions.

Relatedly, defendant also says that Dr. Greiner’s views on warranty repair data is “flawed” because he does not know “Ford’s warranty policies.” However, defendant does not explain why that knowledge deficit would foreclose Dr. Greiner’s testimony that the 10R80 transmission is defective. Nor does defendant cite authority for this aspect of its objection. And Dr. Greiner does recite experience in considering warranty repair data in evaluating the design, development, manufacture and performance of transmission.

Defendant next objects because Dr. Greiner cited Wikipedia in his report. This aspect of the objection is just frivolous. The Wikipedia citations are for illustrative purposes. They play no substantive role in Dr. Greiner’s opinions.

Defendant also finds insufficiency because, in its view, Dr. Greiner “ignores evidence of other causes for a harsh shift.” That argument fails because Dr. Greiner, in fact, does discuss at length how problems with components can affect the architectural defect that is the root cause of the defective 10R80 transmission and how remedy of defective component deficits do not remedy the root cause.

Defendant also argues that, because Dr. Greiner did not consider materials from other models of cars that used the 10R80 transmission, his opinion lacks sufficient factual and data bases. That, of course, ignores the fundamental fact that the 10R80 transmission is the same transmission no matter the model of vehicle into which it is installed.

Defendant next highlights several opinions that, in its view, constitute testimony about its “motive, intent, or state of mind.” However, none of the three statements of which defendant complains are impermissible state of mind evidence. They state facts about what information was available to defendant respecting the 10R80 transmission, what defendant stated about the transmission and the actions that defendant took.

Defendant objects to Dr. Greiner’s opinion about vehicle safety. These opinions, says defendant, are ipse dixit. It also objects to Dr. Greiner’s statement that “shifting issues may cause drivers to feel scar[ed].” Contrary to defendant’s view, the opinions on causing accidents and driver reaction to harsh shifting are based on Dr. Greiner’s experience. But neither side has adequately addressed the admissibility of Dr. Greiner’s statements. Therefore, this objection is overruled without prejudice to defendant renewing it if counsel can locate a legitimate basis for it.

Defendant’s renewed motion to exclude Dr. Greiner’s testimony denied.

Dolan v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-512, June 17, 2026. EDVA at Richmond (Payne). VLW 026-3-261. 30 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-3-261