Jensen et al v. Crete Carrier et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
BRANDON JENSEN and REBECCA
JENSEN,
Plaintiffs, 	MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING THREE MOTIONS
IN LIMINE CONCERNING EXPERT
TESTIMONY OF DR. JAY PRZYBYLA
v.
Case No. 1:23-cv-00105-TC-JCB
CRETE CARRIER CORPORATION and
MICHAEL BEALE,
Defendants.
Judge Tena Campbell
Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
Before the court are three motions in limine concerning the testimony of the Plaintiffs’
accident reconstruction expert, Dr. Jay Przybyla. First, Defendants Michael Beale and Crete
Carrier Corporation (Crete Carrier) move to exclude seven videos relied on by Dr. Przybyla in
his rebuttal report that show semi-truck trailers turning into the Crete Carrier terminal. (ECF
No. 57.) Second, the Defendants move to exclude Dr. Przybyla’s opinions about the time
required for Plaintiff Brandon Jensen to stop his bicycle. (ECF No. 60.) Finally, the Defendants
move to exclude Dr. Przybyla’s reconstruction simulations on the ground that he made improper
assumptions about truck weight. (ECF No. 68.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a “witness who is qualified as an
expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” may offer their opinions at trial if
it is more likely than not that “(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized
Case 1:23-cv-00105-TC-JCB Document 151 Filed 11/14/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable
principles and methods; and (d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the
principles and methods to the facts of the case.”
“The proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of showing that the testimony is
admissible.” Conroy v. Vilsack, 707 F.3d 1163, 1168 (10th Cir. 2013). And the district court
performs a gatekeeping function to ensure that expert testimony is both relevant and reliable.
Macsenti v. Becker, 237 F.3d 1223, 1233 (10th Cir. 2001). To determine reliability, the court
considers whether: 1) the theory has been or can be tested or falsified; 2) the theory or technique
has been subject to peer review and publication; 3) there are known or potential rates of error
regarding specific techniques; and 4) the theory or approach has general acceptance. Bitler v.
A.O. Smith Corp., 400 F.3d 1227, 1233 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593–94 (1993)); see also Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v.
Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141-42 (1999) (extending the Daubert standard to expert testimony
based on technical or other specialized knowledge).
ANALYSIS
The court questioned Dr. Przybyla outside the presence of the jury on the morning of
November 12, 2025. The court cautioned the witness to avoid opining on the credibility of Mr.
Beale’s testimony or the propriety of Mr. Beale’s choices,1 but the court found that the
methodology for his accident reconstruction analysis was otherwise reliable. Uncertainties about
1 For instance, Dr. Przybyla’s expert report suggests that “Mr. Beale chose the worst option
possible” among various scenarios and questions why Mr. Beale would remember a certain
“inconsequential” detail about the accident if he did not mention it to any police officers at the
time. (Report Jay Przybyla, Ph.D., ECF No. 60-4 at 3, 21.)
Case 1:23-cv-00105-TC-JCB Document 151 Filed 11/14/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
bicycle stopping time or the assumptions about truck weight that Dr. Przybyla used to model his
simulations went to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility and could be
adequately examined during cross examination.
The court found that the seven videos showing Crete Carrier trucks turning into the
terminal were used in rebuttal to opinions from the Defendants’ accident reconstruction expert
and were admissible for illustrative purposes. The Defendants’ concerns that the trucks were
different makes and models and had different loads could be addressed during cross examination.
ORDER
For the reasons stated on the record after examination of the expert witness, the court
ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Seven Videos (ECF No. 57) is
DENIED.
2. 	The Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr. Przybyla’s Opinions on the
Time Required for Plaintiff Brandon Jensen to Stop (ECF No. 60) is DENIED.
3. 	The Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr. Przybyla’s Reconstruction
Simulations (ECF No. 68) is DENIED.
DATED this 14th day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________
Tena Campbell
United States District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00105-TC-JCB Document 151 Filed 11/14/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3