3 ms·

They didn't try to "block" the testimony, per se; they tried to intimidate him by sending him threatening letters, warning he'd be criminally prosecuted and th

They didn't try to "block" the testimony, per se; they tried to intimidate him by sending him threatening letters, warning he'd be criminally prosecuted and thrown in jail. Those threats were unconstitutional; he sought, and obtained, a federal injunction saying as much. There was no motion (AFAIK) to block his testimony through legal means.

awinter-py 3y ago
defense stopped a deposition where he was presenting (top of p4) + 'contacted' the NC board of examiners he ignored them, defense submitted formal complaint, board ended up seeking declaratory judgment that both his research and his testimony separately violate the Engineering and Land Surveying Act from the opinion https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opinion.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opi... > The Board seeks a counter-declaration that Nutt's engineering work for the plaintiffs in the Autry litigation, including his engineering calculations, analysis, and resulting expert report, constituted the unauthorized practice of engineering. The Board also seeks the same declaration regarding "testifying at the discovery depositions in support of the work contained in the expert report prepared by Wayne Nutt."
whats_a_quasar 3y ago
Fair enough, they didn't block his testimony in the suit. In general though I think the legal system worked pretty well here. I don't think the board's initial position was crazy. The dispute was escalated to federal court, and the court made a pretty reasonable judgment. Probably could have happened faster though. Edit: trimmed my comment so that it's less cranky. Merry Christmas!
- awinter-py 3y ago
  fwiw the NC rules of evidence clearly states 'knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education' as qualifications for expert testimony https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/706-2 https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/706-2 nothing about specific licensing also NC is a daubert state, which I think means you can attack the testimony's methodology via motion in limine, but doesn't add anything about the expert's qualification https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard that said the engineering + survey act seems fairly clear that evaluating the safety of a public work constitutes 'practice'. if dude has 20+ yoe he could just take the exam under the 13(a3) long-established practice section https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bychapter/chapter_89c.html https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bycha...
mock-possum 3y ago
And here I thought witness intimidation wasn’t allowed - doesn’t that kind of mean they conceded their argument?

awinter-py 3y ago

defense stopped a deposition where he was presenting (top of p4) + 'contacted' the NC board of examiners he ignored them, defense submitted formal complaint, board ended up seeking declaratory judgment that both his research and his testimony separately violate the Engineering and Land Surveying Act from the opinion https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opinion.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opi... > The Board seeks a counter-declaration that Nutt's engineering work for the plaintiffs in the Autry litigation, including his engineering calculations, analysis, and resulting expert report, constituted the unauthorized practice of engineering. The Board also seeks the same declaration regarding "testifying at the discovery depositions in support of the work contained in the expert report prepared by Wayne Nutt."

whats_a_quasar 3y ago

Fair enough, they didn't block his testimony in the suit. In general though I think the legal system worked pretty well here. I don't think the board's initial position was crazy. The dispute was escalated to federal court, and the court made a pretty reasonable judgment. Probably could have happened faster though. Edit: trimmed my comment so that it's less cranky. Merry Christmas!

awinter-py 3y ago
fwiw the NC rules of evidence clearly states 'knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education' as qualifications for expert testimony https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/706-2 https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/706-2 nothing about specific licensing also NC is a daubert state, which I think means you can attack the testimony's methodology via motion in limine, but doesn't add anything about the expert's qualification https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard that said the engineering + survey act seems fairly clear that evaluating the safety of a public work constitutes 'practice'. if dude has 20+ yoe he could just take the exam under the 13(a3) long-established practice section https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bychapter/chapter_89c.html https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bycha...

mock-possum 3y ago

And here I thought witness intimidation wasn’t allowed - doesn’t that kind of mean they conceded their argument?