Preview
FILED
5/2/2024 3:46 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY
Cause No . DC-20-16412
Ashton Manley and Nicholas Manley, In the District Court
Plaintiffs,
And
Linda Harrison,
Intervenor,
VS. 134" Judicial District
Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
Adient US, LLC, and Danny Melendes,
Defendants. Dallas County, Texas
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL
ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D.
To The Honorable Judge of Said Court:
COME NOW, Plaintiffs Ashton Manley and Nicholas Manley, and Intervenor Linda
Harrison as Administratrix of the Estate of Letha Faye Harrison (collectively ‘“Plaintiffs”), and
file this Reply to Defendant Mercedes-Benz Group AG f/k/a Daimler AG (“DAG”) Response to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Daniel Camacho, M.D., Ph.D. as a biomechanical engineering expert
for, and in reply to DAG’s Response would show:
I, SUMMARY OF THE REPLY
DAG has raised to issues in response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike. The first is that Dr.
Camacho’s testimony regarding other cases is protected by privilege. DAG never actually points
to any law that suggests this is remotely true, but merely directs the Court to TEX. R. EviD. 509
and says the information is privileged because he’s a doctor. However, DAG never addresses the
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE,
DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Page 1
other side of the equation — whether any of the persons he is testifying against could ever be
considered a patient.
Again, it should first be noted that there is no physician-patient confidentiality even
recognized under the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE. Moreover, under the Texas rules, a “patient”
“is a person who consults or is seen by a physician for medical care.” TEX. R. EVID. 509(a)(1).
As such, even under the most liberal reading of Rule 509, there would be no physician-patient
relationship. Even if Dr. Camacho’s examination of medical records of the many plaintiffs or
decedents he has testified against could call his review a “consultation,” his actions are for a
purpose diametrically opposite to providing care.
Ironically, DAG suggests that because Dr. Camacho is licensed in Wisconsin, the better
consideration for his seeking protection under privilege would be a consideration of the law in in
his own home state. Yet the evidentiary rule in Wisconsin is even more clear that no such
protection is afforded. Under the Wisconsin rule,
“Patient” means an individual, couple, family or group of individuals who
consults with or is examined or interviewed by a physician, naturopathic doctor,
podiatrist, registered nurse, chiropractor, psychologist, social worker, marriage
and family therapist or professional counselor.
WIS. STAT. ANN. § 905.04. Further, the Wisconsin rules provide:
Except as provided by or inherent or implicit in statute or in rules adopted by the
supreme court or required by the constitution of the United States or Wisconsin,
no person has a privilege to:
(1) Refuse to be a witness; or
(2) Refuse to disclose any matter; or
(3) Refuse to produce any object or writing; or
(4) Prevent another from being a witness or disclosing any matter or
producing any object or writing.
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE,
DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Page 2
WIS. STAT. ANN. § 905.04. Regarding any of the many plaintiffs Dr. Camacho has testified
against (and he has done so on behalf of General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Nissan,
Mitsubishi, Subaru, Kia, Hyundai, BMW, Volkswagen, Jaguar Land Rover, Yamaha, Navistar
and, of course, Mercedes Benz),' he has neither examined nor interviewed any. As such, under
the laws of his home state, no such privilege would apply.
DAG then concludes with the most offensive of suggestions to the Court. That being that
Dr. Camacho provided Plaintiffs with a reasonable alternative; that being to reach out and
contact each individual plaintiff in every case Dr. Camacho has testified in. Plaintiffs will leave
it to the sound discretion of the Court as to the reasonableness of DAG’s ridiculous “solution.”
DAG’s second defense is that the information sought is irrelevant as it is for unrelated
litigation. Plaintiffs specifically set forth the relevance to the information sought — information
specifically recognized as being the very basis for why the very rule regarding production of
prior testimony exists. It can only be presumed that DAG simply did not read that portion of
Plaintiffs’ Motion. However, as a brief primer:
The entirety of Dr. Camacho’s opinions and conclusions was that Letha Harrison’s
paralyzing injuries were due to a preexisting stiffening of her spine that made her more
susceptible to injury, and that she was out of position at the time of impact. As he concluded, had
she not had the preexisting condition, the injuries would not have occurred. In their Motion,
Plaintiffs provided pages and pages of testimony asking the same questions about Dr. Camacho’s
prior testimony — in each case, had he opined that the injuries/deaths were from a preexisting
condition, and had he opined on the mechanism of injury.
1 Additional testimony of Dr. Camacho attached as Exhibit 7, pp. 59-65.
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE,
DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Page 3
The very purpose for both the addition to expert discovery of TEX. R. Clv. P.
195.5(a)(4)(D), identical to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(v), is for a party to examine and
compare an expert’s prior testimony to the present testimony. “The whole idea of the
requirement is to allow the opponent to look into [and expert’s] prior opinions and use them as a
gauge against what he's done in this case.” Paramount Media Grp., Inc. v. Vill. of Bellwood, 308
F.R.D. 162, 166 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (citing Albers by Albers v. Church of the Nazarene, 698 F.2d
852, 858 (7th Cir. 1983) (expert's pattern of testimony in prior cases seriously undermined the
credibility of his opinion)). The court in Paramount Media was directly on point with the instant
case, finding the expert’s “views here might be inconsistent with his views in previous cases; he
may prove to be nothing more than a hired gun who will says anything depending on who's
paying the bill.” Jd. “Indeed prior testimony may reveal whether the expert is genuine and
properly following some scientific method with integrity or simply in the business of expressing
whatever opinion is helpful to the party hiring the expert.” Seawolf Tankers Inc. v. Laurel
Shipping LLC, 345 F.R.D. 55, 58-59 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (quoting Wierzbicki v. United States, 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121720, at *8 (D.S.D. Aug. 27, 2013). As noted by the court in Wierzbicki,
“prior testimony of an expert can be critical to cross-examining the expert and attacking the
expert's opinion.” Wierzbicki, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121720, at *8.
It is that 2023 quote from Seawolf Tankers that is particularly relevant in the instant
cause; whether Dr. Camacho “or simply in the business of expressing whatever opinion is
helpful to the party hiring the expert.” Dr. Camacho testifies always for defendants in product
liability lawsuits, and almost exclusively on behalf of auto manufacturers. He is, as the court in
Paramount Media suggests, “a hired gun who will says anything depending on who's paying the
bill.” As noted by the prior cases where Plaintiffs have had the opportunity to obtain deposition
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE,
DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Page 4
transcripts, Dr. Camacho always reaches the conclusion that the injury or death complained of
was due to some prior medical condition, and Dr. Camacho always chooses to rely on a
nonexistent privilege to avoid the real fact that he is paid to concoct a preexisting condition, and
paid to keep his mouth shut as to his prior testimony. It is a sham that DAG wants to continue to
perpetuate both on behalf of itself and all of the other automakers who stuff money in his
pockets. And it’s a sham that need not be perpetuated in this case.
IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
To remind the Court, Dr. Camacho testified that the very reason he was designated as an
expert in this cause was to give testimony to “address the mature and mechanism of [Letha
Harrison’s] injuries.” [See Ex. 1, p. 1; Ex. 2, 5:11-15]. Yet it is this very testimony — the nature
and mechanism of injury — on which Dr. Camacho has refused to give testimony.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Motion to Strike Daniel M.D., Ph.D. as an
expert in this matter be granted in all things; and for such other and further relief, both at law and
in equity, to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
The TRACY firm
/s E. Todd Tracy
E. Todd Tracy (Lead Counsel)
State Bar No. 20178650
ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com
Garrett D. Rogers
State Bar No. 24110295
Grogers@vehiclesafetyfirm.com
4701 Bengal Street
Dallas, Texas 75235
(214) 324-9000 — Phone
(972) 387-2205 — Fax
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE,
DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Page 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of May 2024, a true and correct copy of the above and
foregoing was served upon Defendant in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure:
/s E. Todd Tracy
E. Todd Tracy
Garrett D. Rogers
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE,
DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Page 6
Exhibit 7
CAUSE NO. DC-20-16412
Ashton Manley and Nicholas ) In the District Court
Manley,
Plaintiffs,
vs. Dallas County, Texas
Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC, Adient US, LLC,
and Danny Melendes,
Defendants. 134th Judicial District
REMOTE VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION
OF
DR. DANIEL CAMACHO
MARCH 8, 2024
REMOTE VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. DANIEL
CAMACHO, produced as a witness at the instance of the
Plaintiffs, and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled
and numbered cause on March 8, 2024, from 11:00 a.m. to
3:08 p.m., before Jori Simmons, Geren facd Shorthand
RepOhtet 1m and fon the state Of Toxac, reported remotely
by computerized stenotype machine, pursuant to the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on the
record or attached hereto.
@O) AdvancedONE is now pLEXITAS’
LEGAL
Exhibit 7
MANLEY v DAIMLER AG, ET AL. Pages 2..5
DR. DANIEL CAMACHO, 03/08/2024
Page 2 Page 4
a APPEARANCES, EXEIBITS
2 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: No. DESCRIPTION PAGE
3 Mr E Todd Tracy 13 The Biomechanics of the Pediatric and Adu!
THE TRACY FIRM Human Thoracic Spine isi
4701 Bengal Street 14 cT scans 154
Dallas, Texas 75235
1s Dynamic injury tolerances for long bones of
FOR THE DEFENDANT: the female upper extremity 157
16 Photograph of person in seat 159
Mr. Alexander P Imberg uy x-ray of leg 161
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS 18 Skeletal Trauma Basic Science, Management,
475 Sansome Street and Reconstruction 163
16th Floor 10
1s X-rays of forearm 164
San Francisco, California 94111 i
20 Skeletal Trauma Basic Science, Management ,
10 ALSO PRESENT: 12 and Reconstruction 165
ul Mr. Jeremy Gilliam, videographer 13 au X-rays of forearm 166
12 u 22 Injuries to the Upper £: emity Dueto F
13 on Outstretched Hands 166
14 15
15 23 Injury tolerance of the wrist and distal
16 forearm to impact loading onto outstretched
16 hands 168
17 uy
18 24 Invoice 170
19 1s
20 19
ai
22 21
23 22
23
24 24
25 28
Page Page 5
INDEX PROCEEDINGS
DR. DANIEL CAMACHO
Pac!GE THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going on the record
Examination by Mr. Tracy 3 March sth, 2024, the time is approximately 11:00 a.m.
Changes and signature np72
Central time. The court reporter may now proce!
Reporter's Certificate uy
EXHIBITS DR. DANIEL CAMACHO,
No. DESCRIPTION 6 having been first duly som, tes d as follows:
Testimony list
10 ov 1 EXAMINATION
ul Methodist Health System record 103 8 BY MR. TRACY:
2 Scan of cervical spine . 104 9 a Your name is Daniel Camacho, correct, sir?
2B Seat Design Principles to Reduce Neck
Injuries in Rear Impacts loa 10 A, Yes.
14 a Q and you have been hired by the attorneys for the
Dr. Camacho's report 108 12 Mercedes-Benz group to analyze the medical records and
18
Methodist Health system record 126 13 radiology studies of Ms. Letha Harrison so that you can
16 4 address the nature and mechanism of her injuries, correct,
Methodist Health System record 127
17 15 sir?
Methodist Health System record 128 16 A. Yes.
18 WW Let me show you what's been marked as
10 Spinal Instability as Defined by the Q
19 ‘Three-Column Spine concept in Acute Spinal 18 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1, which is a copy of your
‘Trauma 129 19 testimony list.
20
10a Accidental Injury Biomechanics and 20 (Exhibit 1 was marked.)
a1 Prevention 136 a1 MR. TRACY: My god, it's not ready,
22 a Practure-Dislocation of the Thoracic Spine 22 apparently. Oh, come on. Really?
in Extension by Upright Seats in Severe Rear
23 crashes 139 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Yeah.
24 qa Blunt Impacts to the back: Bionechanical 24 MR. TRACY: Well, I'm glad to see we
response for model development 143
25 25 came here early so we could get ready. Okay T will tell
@O) AdvancedONE is now pLEXITAS”
LEGAL
MANLEY v DAIMLER AG, ET AL. Pages 58..61
DR. DANIEL CAMACHO, 03/08/2024
Page 58 Page 60
a MR. TRACY: Well, if he wrote a A. Yes.
2 report, he would have been disclosed. So -- Q. Ria?
3 MR. IMBERG: Okay. A. I'm sorry. These cases -- these are cases that
4 B. I don't recall back then which I wrote reports I've been retained for or I've testified?
5 for and which I didn't. There were -- there were just a Retained and/or testified.
6 few cases between 2013 and 2016. I know I didn't write Okay. Thank you.
7 reports for all of them. So I'm not sure which cases I Q Kia?
8 was disclosed and which I weren't Yes.
a Q (By Mr. Tracy) ALL right. And -- and -- and, Hyundai?
10 trust me, I want you to honor any consulting expert 10 ‘Yes.
11 privilege you have, and I don't want to get -- I don't n Daewoo?
12 want to know case names. Okay? So 2014 Ford. 12 No.
2B What about the next time? Was there -- how many a Daihatsu?
14 were there in 2014 approximately? 4 No.
15 A. T don't recall. It -- I don't recall the 15 Q Mercedes-Benz?
16 intervals either, but between 2013 and the first time I 16 ‘Yes.
W testified it was just a handful of cases, maybe three to 17 Merce -- BMW?
18 five; and that's all I remember. 18 Yes.
19 Q Okay. So let's talk about these three to five 19 Volkswagen Porsche Audi?
20 cases. We know that there's -- we've -- we've got Ford 20 Volkswagen, yes.
a. twice. Who else? There's either one more case or -- or 21 Volvo?
22 three more cases. Who else was out there -- 22 I don't -- I don't recall a Volvo case.
23 A. Yeah. 3 Jaguar
Land Rover, yes
24 Q -- before 20167 24 Yes.
25 A. I -- I honestly don't recall. I mean, I've 25 Rolls Royce?
Page 59 Page 61
worked with other manufacturers sometime later. T don't No.
know if they were in that interval or not. Bentley?
Q. All right. Now, at some point in time up No.
through today you've been hired by attorneys that Ferrari Fiat?
represent GM? No.
A, Yes. Maserati Lamborghini?
Q Ford? No.
Yes. Any other car manufacturers that I haven't
Chrysler? identified that you have been hired by attorneys to help
10 ‘Yes. 10 ‘them out on?
i a Toyota? lu MR. IMBERG: Objection to form.
2 ‘Yes. 12 A. I can't think of any right now. No.
B Honda? 13 Q (By Mr. Tracy) You've also been hired by
“4 Yes. 14 attorneys that represent various component part
15 Q Nissan? 15 manufacturers. Earlier you told us about Adient, correct?
16 Yes. 16 AA Yeah.
WV Mazda? uy MR. IMBERG: Objection to form.
18 I don't recall if I've had a Mazda case. 18 (By Mr. Tracy) Fave you been hired by Magna?
ig All right. How about Mitsubishi? 1g No.
20 Yes. 20 Faurecia, F-a-u-r-e-c-i-a?
an Isuzu? a1 No.
22 A. I don't think I've had an Isuzu case. 22 Brose, B-r-0-s-e?
23 ‘Suzuki? 23 No.
24 A. No. 24 Leer?
25 Q Subaru? 25 No. I think -- no. No, T haven't T think
@O) AdvancedONE is now pLEXITAS”
LEGAL
MANLEY v DAIMLER AG, ET AL. Pages 62..65
DR. DANIEL CAMACHO, 03/08/2024
Page 62 Page 64
1 they were Co-Defendants on one case at some point, but PACCAR?
2 they weren't the ones who hired me. No.
3 Q. Intier, I-n-t-i-e-r? Kenworth?
4 A. No. No.
5 Q, Eave you been hired by attorneys that represent Mack?
various seat belt or airbag manufacturers, like TRW? No.
A. No. Volvo?
MR. INBERG: Objection to form No.
(By Mr. Tracy) Autoliv? Western Star?
10 No. 10 No.
nh Bosch? nn Freight1iner?
12 No. 12 No.
2B ‘Takata? a Daimler Trucks?
u No. 4 No.
1s Breed, AlliedSignal, Honeywell, Key Safety, 15 Hino?
16 since they've had so many name variations? 16 No.
Wy No. 17 Any other heavy truck manufacturers other than
18 Duckboo? 18 the ones I just listed?
19 No. 19 A. No.
20 NSK-Warner? 20 MR. IMBERG: Objection to form.
a No. a1 Q. (By Mr. Tracy) Have you been -- have you ever
22 Nippon Seiki? 22 been hired by an attorney that represents various bus or
23 No. 23: RV manufacturers?
24 Continental? 24 A. No.
25 No. 25 Q Have you ever been hired by any attorneys that
Page 63 Page 65
Q. You've been hired by attorneys that represented 1 represent various motorcycle manufacturers?
some child seat manufacturers. ‘You told us about a Graco 2 A. No.
case. 3 Q. Fave you ever been hired by attorneys
Yes. 4 representing any tire manufacturers?
How about Dorel Juvenile Group, sometimes called A. No.
6 Costco? Q. Fave you ever been hired by attorneys
No. 7 repress ing any company that manufactured -- that
How about Evenflo? 8 manufactured three-wheel vehicles?
No. 9 A. No.
10 Peg Perego? 10 ‘Snowmobiles?
lu (Witness sneezes.) lu No.
2 Excuse me. No. 12 Four-wheel ATVs or UTVs?
3 (By Mr. Tracy) Fisher Price? 13 No.
u No. 14 Fow about any amsenent park -- amusement park
15 Safety First? 15 rides?
16 No. 16 A. Actually, four wheels, there was a case
WW Kids 2? ur recently. It was --
18 Yes. 18 Q Let's not -- don't give me any --
ig Any other child seat manufacturers? 1g MR. IMBERG: (Indiscernible.}
20 No. 20 (By Mr. Tracy) Do not give me any details.
an Q Have you done any -- have you been hired by a1 MR. INBERG: Yeah.
= attorneys that represent any heavy truck manufacturers? 22 Q (By Mr. Tracy) What is the manufacturer?
23 A. Navistar. 23 That's all I care about.
24 Q. How about Peterbilt? 4 A. Okay. T think it's Yamaha.
25 A. Yo. 25 Q. All right.
@O) AdvancedONE is now PLEX! TAS
LEGAL
MANLEY v DAIMLER AG, ET AL. Pages 174..176
DR. DANIEL CAMACHO, 03/08/2024
Page 174 Page 176
CAUSE NO. DC-20-16412 FURTHER CERTIFICATION UNDER TRCP RULE 203
Ashton Manley and Nicholas ) In the District Court
Manley, ) ‘The original deposition was/was not returned to the
Plaintiffs, ) deposition officer on
) If returned, the attached Changes and Signature
vs. ) Dallas County, Texas page(s) contain(s) any changes and the reasons therefor
) If returned, the original deposition was delivered to
Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz )
Mr. BE. Todd Tracy, Custodial attorney.
USA, LLC, Adient US, LLC, )
and Danny Melendes, ) 8. is the deposition officer's charges to the
Defendants. ) 134th Judicial District 10 Plaintiffs for preparing the original deposition and any
uw copies of exhibits;
12 ‘The deposition was delivered in accordance with Rule
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 13 203.3, and a copy of this certificate, served on all
10 REMOTE VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. DANIEL CAMACHO 14 parties shown herein, was filed with the Clerk.
uw MARCH 8, 2024 1s Certified to by me on this day of
12 16 2024.
13 I, JORI SIMMONS, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and ay
14 for the State of Texas, hereby certify to the following: 18
4s ‘That the witness, DR. DANIEL CAMACHO, was duly sworn 19
16 and that the transcript of the deposition is a true record 20
a7 of the testimony given by the witness; Texas CSR 2794
18 ‘That the deposition transcript was duly submitted on a1 Expiration: 1/31/24
19 to the witness or to the attorney for
20 the witness for examination, signature, and return to me AdvancedONE/Lexitas
a1 ;' 22 FIRM NO, CRF-12176
by
22 ‘That pursuant to information given to the deposition 1-888-656-DEPO
23 officer at the time said testimony was taken, the 23
24 following includes all parties of record and the amount of 24
25 time used by each party at the time of the deposition: 28
Page 175
Mr. EB. Todd Tracy (3 hours, 14 minutes)
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Mr. Alexander Imberg
Attorney for Defendants
That a copy of this certificate was served on all
parties shown herein on and filed
with the Clerk.
I further certify that I am neither counsel for,
related to, nor employed by any of the parties in the
action in which this proceeding was taken, and further
10 that I am not financially or otherwise interested in the
1 outcome of this action.
12 Further certification requirements pursuant to
13 Rule 203 of the Texas Code of Civil procedure will be
14 complied with after they have occurred
15 Certified to by me on this 22nd day of
16 March, 2024.
uy
18
1g
Texas CSR 2794
20 Expiration: 1/31/24
AdvancedONE/Lexitas
21 FIRM NO. CRF-12176
1-888-656-DEPO
22
23
24
25
@O) AdvancedONE is now pLEXITAS’
LEGAL
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
E Tracy on behalf of E Tracy
Bar No. 20178650
ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com
Envelope ID: 87326394
Filing Code Description: Response
Filing Description: PLTF/ TO DEF RESPONSE TO PLTF MOTION TO
STRIKE EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D.
Status as of 5/3/2024 9:05 AM CST
Associated Case Party: ASHTON MANLEY
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Rachel EMontes Rachel@monteslawgroup.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Shonda Fields shonda@monteslawgroup.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
E. Todd Tracy 20178650 ettfedcourt@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
E TODDTRACY racey@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM ERROR
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Andrew G.Counts acounts@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Todd Tracy ettfedcourt@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Kelly M.Olson kelly.olson@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Kristen Perry Kristen.perry@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Todd Tracy ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
E. T.Tracy ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Jeffrey Whitt jeffrey.whitt@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Elizabeth Christen elizabeth.christen@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Lorin Subar lsubar@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Bernard EZwillenberg bernardezwillenberg@gmail.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Wendell "CHIP"Martens, Jr. cmartens@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Rainie Farris rfarris@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Garrett Rogers grogers@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
E Tracy on behalf of E Tracy
Bar No. 20178650
ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com
Envelope ID: 87326394
Filing Code Description: Response
Filing Description: PLTF/ TO DEF RESPONSE TO PLTF MOTION TO
STRIKE EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D.
Status as of 5/3/2024 9:05 AM CST
Case Contacts
Garrett Rogers grogers@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Michael Sekiguchi michael.sekiguchi@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Philip Cosgrove phil.cosgrove@nelsonmullins.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Kurt C.Kern kurt.kern@nelsonmullins.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Tracy Kambobe tracy.kambobe@nelsonmullins.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Rachel Pereyda rachel.pereyda@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Alexander Imberglmberg alexander.imberg@squirepb.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Andrew Kirchoff andrew.kirchoff@squirepb.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM ERROR
Daniel Permenter Daniel.Permenter@nelsonmullins.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Kirk L.Pittard kpittards@dpslawgroup.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM ERROR
Tanya Scarbrough tanya.scarbrough@nelsonmullins.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: LETHAFAYEHARRISON
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
E. Todd Tracy | 20178650 ettfedcourt@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: NICHOLAS MANLEY
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
E. Todd Tracy | 20178650 ettfedcourt@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: ALEXANDERPIMBERG
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
E Tracy on behalf of E Tracy
Bar No. 20178650
ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com
Envelope ID: 87326394
Filing Code Description: Response
Filing Description: PLTF/ TO DEF RESPONSE TO PLTF MOTION TO
STRIKE EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D.
Status as of 5/3/2024 9:05 AM CST
Associated Case Party: ALAEXANDERPIMBERG
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Alexander Imberg alexander.imberg@squirepb.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: Adient US LLC
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Dawn S. McCord dawn.mccord@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: DAIMLER AG
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status
Tanya Scarbrough Tanya.Scarbrough@bowmanandbrooke.com | 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM ERROR
Ryan Jones ryan.jones@squirepb.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 5/2/2024 3:46 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY Cause No . DC-20-16412 Ashton Manley and Nicholas Manley, In the District Court Plaintiffs, And Linda Harrison, Intervenor, VS. 134" Judicial District Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Adient US, LLC, and Danny Melendes, Defendants. Dallas County, Texas PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. To The Honorable Judge of Said Court: COME NOW, Plaintiffs Ashton Manley and Nicholas Manley, and Intervenor Linda Harrison as Administratrix of the Estate of Letha Faye Harrison (collectively ‘“Plaintiffs”), and file this Reply to Defendant Mercedes-Benz Group AG f/k/a Daimler AG (“DAG”) Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Daniel Camacho, M.D., Ph.D. as a biomechanical engineering expert for, and in reply to DAG’s Response would show: I, SUMMARY OF THE REPLY DAG has raised to issues in response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike. The first is that Dr. Camacho’s testimony regarding other cases is protected by privilege. DAG never actually points to any law that suggests this is remotely true, but merely directs the Court to TEX. R. EviD. 509 and says the information is privileged because he’s a doctor. However, DAG never addresses the PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE, DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Page 1 other side of the equation — whether any of the persons he is testifying against could ever be considered a patient. Again, it should first be noted that there is no physician-patient confidentiality even recognized under the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE. Moreover, under the Texas rules, a “patient” “is a person who consults or is seen by a physician for medical care.” TEX. R. EVID. 509(a)(1). As such, even under the most liberal reading of Rule 509, there would be no physician-patient relationship. Even if Dr. Camacho’s examination of medical records of the many plaintiffs or decedents he has testified against could call his review a “consultation,” his actions are for a purpose diametrically opposite to providing care. Ironically, DAG suggests that because Dr. Camacho is licensed in Wisconsin, the better consideration for his seeking protection under privilege would be a consideration of the law in in his own home state. Yet the evidentiary rule in Wisconsin is even more clear that no such protection is afforded. Under the Wisconsin rule, “Patient” means an individual, couple, family or group of individuals who consults with or is examined or interviewed by a physician, naturopathic doctor, podiatrist, registered nurse, chiropractor, psychologist, social worker, marriage and family therapist or professional counselor. WIS. STAT. ANN. § 905.04. Further, the Wisconsin rules provide: Except as provided by or inherent or implicit in statute or in rules adopted by the supreme court or required by the constitution of the United States or Wisconsin, no person has a privilege to: (1) Refuse to be a witness; or (2) Refuse to disclose any matter; or (3) Refuse to produce any object or writing; or (4) Prevent another from being a witness or disclosing any matter or producing any object or writing. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE, DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Page 2 WIS. STAT. ANN. § 905.04. Regarding any of the many plaintiffs Dr. Camacho has testified against (and he has done so on behalf of General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Kia, Hyundai, BMW, Volkswagen, Jaguar Land Rover, Yamaha, Navistar and, of course, Mercedes Benz),' he has neither examined nor interviewed any. As such, under the laws of his home state, no such privilege would apply. DAG then concludes with the most offensive of suggestions to the Court. That being that Dr. Camacho provided Plaintiffs with a reasonable alternative; that being to reach out and contact each individual plaintiff in every case Dr. Camacho has testified in. Plaintiffs will leave it to the sound discretion of the Court as to the reasonableness of DAG’s ridiculous “solution.” DAG’s second defense is that the information sought is irrelevant as it is for unrelated litigation. Plaintiffs specifically set forth the relevance to the information sought — information specifically recognized as being the very basis for why the very rule regarding production of prior testimony exists. It can only be presumed that DAG simply did not read that portion of Plaintiffs’ Motion. However, as a brief primer: The entirety of Dr. Camacho’s opinions and conclusions was that Letha Harrison’s paralyzing injuries were due to a preexisting stiffening of her spine that made her more susceptible to injury, and that she was out of position at the time of impact. As he concluded, had she not had the preexisting condition, the injuries would not have occurred. In their Motion, Plaintiffs provided pages and pages of testimony asking the same questions about Dr. Camacho’s prior testimony — in each case, had he opined that the injuries/deaths were from a preexisting condition, and had he opined on the mechanism of injury. 1 Additional testimony of Dr. Camacho attached as Exhibit 7, pp. 59-65. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE, DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Page 3 The very purpose for both the addition to expert discovery of TEX. R. Clv. P. 195.5(a)(4)(D), identical to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(v), is for a party to examine and compare an expert’s prior testimony to the present testimony. “The whole idea of the requirement is to allow the opponent to look into [and expert’s] prior opinions and use them as a gauge against what he's done in this case.” Paramount Media Grp., Inc. v. Vill. of Bellwood, 308 F.R.D. 162, 166 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (citing Albers by Albers v. Church of the Nazarene, 698 F.2d 852, 858 (7th Cir. 1983) (expert's pattern of testimony in prior cases seriously undermined the credibility of his opinion)). The court in Paramount Media was directly on point with the instant case, finding the expert’s “views here might be inconsistent with his views in previous cases; he may prove to be nothing more than a hired gun who will says anything depending on who's paying the bill.” Jd. “Indeed prior testimony may reveal whether the expert is genuine and properly following some scientific method with integrity or simply in the business of expressing whatever opinion is helpful to the party hiring the expert.” Seawolf Tankers Inc. v. Laurel Shipping LLC, 345 F.R.D. 55, 58-59 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (quoting Wierzbicki v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121720, at *8 (D.S.D. Aug. 27, 2013). As noted by the court in Wierzbicki, “prior testimony of an expert can be critical to cross-examining the expert and attacking the expert's opinion.” Wierzbicki, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121720, at *8. It is that 2023 quote from Seawolf Tankers that is particularly relevant in the instant cause; whether Dr. Camacho “or simply in the business of expressing whatever opinion is helpful to the party hiring the expert.” Dr. Camacho testifies always for defendants in product liability lawsuits, and almost exclusively on behalf of auto manufacturers. He is, as the court in Paramount Media suggests, “a hired gun who will says anything depending on who's paying the bill.” As noted by the prior cases where Plaintiffs have had the opportunity to obtain deposition PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE, DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Page 4 transcripts, Dr. Camacho always reaches the conclusion that the injury or death complained of was due to some prior medical condition, and Dr. Camacho always chooses to rely on a nonexistent privilege to avoid the real fact that he is paid to concoct a preexisting condition, and paid to keep his mouth shut as to his prior testimony. It is a sham that DAG wants to continue to perpetuate both on behalf of itself and all of the other automakers who stuff money in his pockets. And it’s a sham that need not be perpetuated in this case. IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER To remind the Court, Dr. Camacho testified that the very reason he was designated as an expert in this cause was to give testimony to “address the mature and mechanism of [Letha Harrison’s] injuries.” [See Ex. 1, p. 1; Ex. 2, 5:11-15]. Yet it is this very testimony — the nature and mechanism of injury — on which Dr. Camacho has refused to give testimony. Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Motion to Strike Daniel M.D., Ph.D. as an expert in this matter be granted in all things; and for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, The TRACY firm /s E. Todd Tracy E. Todd Tracy (Lead Counsel) State Bar No. 20178650 ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com Garrett D. Rogers State Bar No. 24110295 Grogers@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 4701 Bengal Street Dallas, Texas 75235 (214) 324-9000 — Phone (972) 387-2205 — Fax Attorneys for Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE, DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Page 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of May 2024, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served upon Defendant in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: /s E. Todd Tracy E. Todd Tracy Garrett D. Rogers PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE, DEFENDANT’S BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Page 6 Exhibit 7 CAUSE NO. DC-20-16412 Ashton Manley and Nicholas ) In the District Court Manley, Plaintiffs, vs. Dallas County, Texas Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Adient US, LLC, and Danny Melendes, Defendants. 134th Judicial District REMOTE VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. DANIEL CAMACHO MARCH 8, 2024 REMOTE VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. DANIEL CAMACHO, produced as a witness at the instance of the Plaintiffs, and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on March 8, 2024, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:08 p.m., before Jori Simmons, Geren facd Shorthand RepOhtet 1m and fon the state Of Toxac, reported remotely by computerized stenotype machine, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on the record or attached hereto. @O) AdvancedONE is now pLEXITAS’ LEGAL Exhibit 7 MANLEY v DAIMLER AG, ET AL. Pages 2..5 DR. DANIEL CAMACHO, 03/08/2024 Page 2 Page 4 a APPEARANCES, EXEIBITS 2 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: No. DESCRIPTION PAGE 3 Mr E Todd Tracy 13 The Biomechanics of the Pediatric and Adu! THE TRACY FIRM Human Thoracic Spine isi 4701 Bengal Street 14 cT scans 154 Dallas, Texas 75235 1s Dynamic injury tolerances for long bones of FOR THE DEFENDANT: the female upper extremity 157 16 Photograph of person in seat 159 Mr. Alexander P Imberg uy x-ray of leg 161 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS 18 Skeletal Trauma Basic Science, Management, 475 Sansome Street and Reconstruction 163 16th Floor 10 1s X-rays of forearm 164 San Francisco, California 94111 i 20 Skeletal Trauma Basic Science, Management , 10 ALSO PRESENT: 12 and Reconstruction 165 ul Mr. Jeremy Gilliam, videographer 13 au X-rays of forearm 166 12 u 22 Injuries to the Upper £: emity Dueto F 13 on Outstretched Hands 166 14 15 15 23 Injury tolerance of the wrist and distal 16 forearm to impact loading onto outstretched 16 hands 168 17 uy 18 24 Invoice 170 19 1s 20 19 ai 22 21 23 22 23 24 24 25 28 Page Page 5 INDEX PROCEEDINGS DR. DANIEL CAMACHO Pac!GE THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going on the record Examination by Mr. Tracy 3 March sth, 2024, the time is approximately 11:00 a.m. Changes and signature np72 Central time. The court reporter may now proce! Reporter's Certificate uy EXHIBITS DR. DANIEL CAMACHO, No. DESCRIPTION 6 having been first duly som, tes d as follows: Testimony list 10 ov 1 EXAMINATION ul Methodist Health System record 103 8 BY MR. TRACY: 2 Scan of cervical spine . 104 9 a Your name is Daniel Camacho, correct, sir? 2B Seat Design Principles to Reduce Neck Injuries in Rear Impacts loa 10 A, Yes. 14 a Q and you have been hired by the attorneys for the Dr. Camacho's report 108 12 Mercedes-Benz group to analyze the medical records and 18 Methodist Health system record 126 13 radiology studies of Ms. Letha Harrison so that you can 16 4 address the nature and mechanism of her injuries, correct, Methodist Health System record 127 17 15 sir? Methodist Health System record 128 16 A. Yes. 18 WW Let me show you what's been marked as 10 Spinal Instability as Defined by the Q 19 ‘Three-Column Spine concept in Acute Spinal 18 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1, which is a copy of your ‘Trauma 129 19 testimony list. 20 10a Accidental Injury Biomechanics and 20 (Exhibit 1 was marked.) a1 Prevention 136 a1 MR. TRACY: My god, it's not ready, 22 a Practure-Dislocation of the Thoracic Spine 22 apparently. Oh, come on. Really? in Extension by Upright Seats in Severe Rear 23 crashes 139 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Yeah. 24 qa Blunt Impacts to the back: Bionechanical 24 MR. TRACY: Well, I'm glad to see we response for model development 143 25 25 came here early so we could get ready. Okay T will tell @O) AdvancedONE is now pLEXITAS” LEGAL MANLEY v DAIMLER AG, ET AL. Pages 58..61 DR. DANIEL CAMACHO, 03/08/2024 Page 58 Page 60 a MR. TRACY: Well, if he wrote a A. Yes. 2 report, he would have been disclosed. So -- Q. Ria? 3 MR. IMBERG: Okay. A. I'm sorry. These cases -- these are cases that 4 B. I don't recall back then which I wrote reports I've been retained for or I've testified? 5 for and which I didn't. There were -- there were just a Retained and/or testified. 6 few cases between 2013 and 2016. I know I didn't write Okay. Thank you. 7 reports for all of them. So I'm not sure which cases I Q Kia? 8 was disclosed and which I weren't Yes. a Q (By Mr. Tracy) ALL right. And -- and -- and, Hyundai? 10 trust me, I want you to honor any consulting expert 10 ‘Yes. 11 privilege you have, and I don't want to get -- I don't n Daewoo? 12 want to know case names. Okay? So 2014 Ford. 12 No. 2B What about the next time? Was there -- how many a Daihatsu? 14 were there in 2014 approximately? 4 No. 15 A. T don't recall. It -- I don't recall the 15 Q Mercedes-Benz? 16 intervals either, but between 2013 and the first time I 16 ‘Yes. W testified it was just a handful of cases, maybe three to 17 Merce -- BMW? 18 five; and that's all I remember. 18 Yes. 19 Q Okay. So let's talk about these three to five 19 Volkswagen Porsche Audi? 20 cases. We know that there's -- we've -- we've got Ford 20 Volkswagen, yes. a. twice. Who else? There's either one more case or -- or 21 Volvo? 22 three more cases. Who else was out there -- 22 I don't -- I don't recall a Volvo case. 23 A. Yeah. 3 Jaguar Land Rover, yes 24 Q -- before 20167 24 Yes. 25 A. I -- I honestly don't recall. I mean, I've 25 Rolls Royce? Page 59 Page 61 worked with other manufacturers sometime later. T don't No. know if they were in that interval or not. Bentley? Q. All right. Now, at some point in time up No. through today you've been hired by attorneys that Ferrari Fiat? represent GM? No. A, Yes. Maserati Lamborghini? Q Ford? No. Yes. Any other car manufacturers that I haven't Chrysler? identified that you have been hired by attorneys to help 10 ‘Yes. 10 ‘them out on? i a Toyota? lu MR. IMBERG: Objection to form. 2 ‘Yes. 12 A. I can't think of any right now. No. B Honda? 13 Q (By Mr. Tracy) You've also been hired by “4 Yes. 14 attorneys that represent various component part 15 Q Nissan? 15 manufacturers. Earlier you told us about Adient, correct? 16 Yes. 16 AA Yeah. WV Mazda? uy MR. IMBERG: Objection to form. 18 I don't recall if I've had a Mazda case. 18 (By Mr. Tracy) Fave you been hired by Magna? ig All right. How about Mitsubishi? 1g No. 20 Yes. 20 Faurecia, F-a-u-r-e-c-i-a? an Isuzu? a1 No. 22 A. I don't think I've had an Isuzu case. 22 Brose, B-r-0-s-e? 23 ‘Suzuki? 23 No. 24 A. No. 24 Leer? 25 Q Subaru? 25 No. I think -- no. No, T haven't T think @O) AdvancedONE is now pLEXITAS” LEGAL MANLEY v DAIMLER AG, ET AL. Pages 62..65 DR. DANIEL CAMACHO, 03/08/2024 Page 62 Page 64 1 they were Co-Defendants on one case at some point, but PACCAR? 2 they weren't the ones who hired me. No. 3 Q. Intier, I-n-t-i-e-r? Kenworth? 4 A. No. No. 5 Q, Eave you been hired by attorneys that represent Mack? various seat belt or airbag manufacturers, like TRW? No. A. No. Volvo? MR. INBERG: Objection to form No. (By Mr. Tracy) Autoliv? Western Star? 10 No. 10 No. nh Bosch? nn Freight1iner? 12 No. 12 No. 2B ‘Takata? a Daimler Trucks? u No. 4 No. 1s Breed, AlliedSignal, Honeywell, Key Safety, 15 Hino? 16 since they've had so many name variations? 16 No. Wy No. 17 Any other heavy truck manufacturers other than 18 Duckboo? 18 the ones I just listed? 19 No. 19 A. No. 20 NSK-Warner? 20 MR. IMBERG: Objection to form. a No. a1 Q. (By Mr. Tracy) Have you been -- have you ever 22 Nippon Seiki? 22 been hired by an attorney that represents various bus or 23 No. 23: RV manufacturers? 24 Continental? 24 A. No. 25 No. 25 Q Have you ever been hired by any attorneys that Page 63 Page 65 Q. You've been hired by attorneys that represented 1 represent various motorcycle manufacturers? some child seat manufacturers. ‘You told us about a Graco 2 A. No. case. 3 Q. Fave you ever been hired by attorneys Yes. 4 representing any tire manufacturers? How about Dorel Juvenile Group, sometimes called A. No. 6 Costco? Q. Fave you ever been hired by attorneys No. 7 repress ing any company that manufactured -- that How about Evenflo? 8 manufactured three-wheel vehicles? No. 9 A. No. 10 Peg Perego? 10 ‘Snowmobiles? lu (Witness sneezes.) lu No. 2 Excuse me. No. 12 Four-wheel ATVs or UTVs? 3 (By Mr. Tracy) Fisher Price? 13 No. u No. 14 Fow about any amsenent park -- amusement park 15 Safety First? 15 rides? 16 No. 16 A. Actually, four wheels, there was a case WW Kids 2? ur recently. It was -- 18 Yes. 18 Q Let's not -- don't give me any -- ig Any other child seat manufacturers? 1g MR. IMBERG: (Indiscernible.} 20 No. 20 (By Mr. Tracy) Do not give me any details. an Q Have you done any -- have you been hired by a1 MR. INBERG: Yeah. = attorneys that represent any heavy truck manufacturers? 22 Q (By Mr. Tracy) What is the manufacturer? 23 A. Navistar. 23 That's all I care about. 24 Q. How about Peterbilt? 4 A. Okay. T think it's Yamaha. 25 A. Yo. 25 Q. All right. @O) AdvancedONE is now PLEX! TAS LEGAL MANLEY v DAIMLER AG, ET AL. Pages 174..176 DR. DANIEL CAMACHO, 03/08/2024 Page 174 Page 176 CAUSE NO. DC-20-16412 FURTHER CERTIFICATION UNDER TRCP RULE 203 Ashton Manley and Nicholas ) In the District Court Manley, ) ‘The original deposition was/was not returned to the Plaintiffs, ) deposition officer on ) If returned, the attached Changes and Signature vs. ) Dallas County, Texas page(s) contain(s) any changes and the reasons therefor ) If returned, the original deposition was delivered to Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz ) Mr. BE. Todd Tracy, Custodial attorney. USA, LLC, Adient US, LLC, ) and Danny Melendes, ) 8. is the deposition officer's charges to the Defendants. ) 134th Judicial District 10 Plaintiffs for preparing the original deposition and any uw copies of exhibits; 12 ‘The deposition was delivered in accordance with Rule REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 13 203.3, and a copy of this certificate, served on all 10 REMOTE VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. DANIEL CAMACHO 14 parties shown herein, was filed with the Clerk. uw MARCH 8, 2024 1s Certified to by me on this day of 12 16 2024. 13 I, JORI SIMMONS, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and ay 14 for the State of Texas, hereby certify to the following: 18 4s ‘That the witness, DR. DANIEL CAMACHO, was duly sworn 19 16 and that the transcript of the deposition is a true record 20 a7 of the testimony given by the witness; Texas CSR 2794 18 ‘That the deposition transcript was duly submitted on a1 Expiration: 1/31/24 19 to the witness or to the attorney for 20 the witness for examination, signature, and return to me AdvancedONE/Lexitas a1 ;' 22 FIRM NO, CRF-12176 by 22 ‘That pursuant to information given to the deposition 1-888-656-DEPO 23 officer at the time said testimony was taken, the 23 24 following includes all parties of record and the amount of 24 25 time used by each party at the time of the deposition: 28 Page 175 Mr. EB. Todd Tracy (3 hours, 14 minutes) Attorney for Plaintiffs Mr. Alexander Imberg Attorney for Defendants That a copy of this certificate was served on all parties shown herein on and filed with the Clerk. I further certify that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties in the action in which this proceeding was taken, and further 10 that I am not financially or otherwise interested in the 1 outcome of this action. 12 Further certification requirements pursuant to 13 Rule 203 of the Texas Code of Civil procedure will be 14 complied with after they have occurred 15 Certified to by me on this 22nd day of 16 March, 2024. uy 18 1g Texas CSR 2794 20 Expiration: 1/31/24 AdvancedONE/Lexitas 21 FIRM NO. CRF-12176 1-888-656-DEPO 22 23 24 25 @O) AdvancedONE is now pLEXITAS’ LEGAL Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. E Tracy on behalf of E Tracy Bar No. 20178650 ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com Envelope ID: 87326394 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: PLTF/ TO DEF RESPONSE TO PLTF MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Status as of 5/3/2024 9:05 AM CST Associated Case Party: ASHTON MANLEY Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Rachel EMontes Rachel@monteslawgroup.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Shonda Fields shonda@monteslawgroup.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT E. Todd Tracy 20178650 ettfedcourt@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT E TODDTRACY racey@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM ERROR Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Andrew G.Counts acounts@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Todd Tracy ettfedcourt@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Kelly M.Olson kelly.olson@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Kristen Perry Kristen.perry@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Todd Tracy ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT E. T.Tracy ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Jeffrey Whitt jeffrey.whitt@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Elizabeth Christen elizabeth.christen@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Lorin Subar lsubar@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Bernard EZwillenberg bernardezwillenberg@gmail.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Wendell "CHIP"Martens, Jr. cmartens@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Rainie Farris rfarris@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Garrett Rogers grogers@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. E Tracy on behalf of E Tracy Bar No. 20178650 ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com Envelope ID: 87326394 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: PLTF/ TO DEF RESPONSE TO PLTF MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Status as of 5/3/2024 9:05 AM CST Case Contacts Garrett Rogers grogers@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Michael Sekiguchi michael.sekiguchi@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Philip Cosgrove phil.cosgrove@nelsonmullins.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Kurt C.Kern kurt.kern@nelsonmullins.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Tracy Kambobe tracy.kambobe@nelsonmullins.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Rachel Pereyda rachel.pereyda@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Alexander Imberglmberg alexander.imberg@squirepb.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Andrew Kirchoff andrew.kirchoff@squirepb.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM ERROR Daniel Permenter Daniel.Permenter@nelsonmullins.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Kirk L.Pittard kpittards@dpslawgroup.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM ERROR Tanya Scarbrough tanya.scarbrough@nelsonmullins.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Associated Case Party: LETHAFAYEHARRISON Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status E. Todd Tracy | 20178650 ettfedcourt@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Associated Case Party: NICHOLAS MANLEY Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status E. Todd Tracy | 20178650 ettfedcourt@vehiclesafetyfirm.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Associated Case Party: ALEXANDERPIMBERG Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. E Tracy on behalf of E Tracy Bar No. 20178650 ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com Envelope ID: 87326394 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: PLTF/ TO DEF RESPONSE TO PLTF MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT, DANIEL CAMACHO, M.D., PH.D. Status as of 5/3/2024 9:05 AM CST Associated Case Party: ALAEXANDERPIMBERG Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status Alexander Imberg alexander.imberg@squirepb.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Associated Case Party: Adient US LLC Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status Dawn S. McCord dawn.mccord@faegredrinker.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT Associated Case Party: DAIMLER AG Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Status Tanya Scarbrough Tanya.Scarbrough@bowmanandbrooke.com | 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM ERROR Ryan Jones ryan.jones@squirepb.com 5/2/2024 3:46:58 PM SENT