Food Science Expert Witness Barred from Testifying Over Lack of Medical Credentials
Posted on June 27, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This dispute arose from Plaintiff Denise Young’s claim that she suffered from Salmonella Gastroenteritis due to food poisoning after consuming a meal her son purchased for her on June 11, 2022, from a Chipotle restaurant in Newark, New Jersey.
Young’s son purchased a Pollo Asado Bowl with Queso Blanco from Chipotle at 6:48 PM on June 11, 2022 and delivered it to her. This dish, Pollo Asado comprises chicken, black beans, tomato salsa, white rice, corn salsa,
fajita veggies and queso blanco.
Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Marvin E. Winston.
Food Science Expert Witness
Marvin E. Winston is an experienced food scientist. He has over thirty years of experience supporting attorneys and insurance companies by resolving a wide range of issues and offering reliable assistance in legal matters.
Discussion by the Court
Defendant contended that Winston’s report was procedurally deficient and therefore inadmissible. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to (a) produce the report in a timely manner, (b) include the expert disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and (c) provide Winston’s CV. Defendant further argued that the report was substantively flawed, asserting that Winston’s conclusions were speculative, his methodology unreliable, and his testimony unlikely to assist the trier of fact in resolving the key factual disputes.
Defendant emphasized that although Winston identified himself as a “Consulting Food Scientist,” he provided no explanation or supporting materials to clarify what that title meant in the context of Plaintiff’s allegations or how it qualified him to offer the opinions in the report. Additionally, Winston had not conducted any testing of the food in question. Defendant also maintained that Winston was unqualified to make a medical diagnosis or establish a causal link between Plaintiff’s meal and her alleged illness, and argued that the report lacked any meaningful probative value.
Plaintiff argued that she disclosed Winston as an expert to the Defendant and the Court and that any failure to make disclosures is “harmless because the Defendant received and read the report and had an opportunity to formulate a reply to challenge the CV as well as the, qualifications data and other cases which during the last 4 years Winston has testified as a witness.”
Analysis
Putting aside the procedural deficiencies and Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the substantive issues Defendant raised are significant and as such, the Court found that the proposed testimony of Winston did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 702.
While the Court did not doubt Winston’s purported qualifications as a “Consulting Food Scientist” and that he testified as an expert in other proceedings related to that title, he is not qualified to opine on the medical causation for Plaintiff’s symptoms on June 12, 2022 here.
Winston is not a medical doctor and, as Defendant stated in its moving brief, there is “no evidence or expert material presented to explain what” Winston’s purported food science expertise “means in the context of the Plaintiff’s allegations, or how if at all it qualifies him to offer the opinions contained therein.”
Additionally, Winston identified no methodology to support his conclusion that Plaintiff “was served food at Chipotle Mexican Grill which resulted in her contracting food poisoning”—a medical diagnosis— and Winston himself admitted that he is uncertain as to what the “causative organism” of Plaintiff’s symptoms was because no tests were performed to make such a determination.
The Court did not see anything in Winston’s report that led to the conclusion that Plaintiff suffered from salmonella poisoning as alleged, and more significantly, the Court did not see anything in the Winston Report that would help the trier of fact determine whether Plaintiff suffered salmonella poisoning from consuming Defendant’s food.
Held
The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Marvin E. Winston.
Key Takeaway:
As the 2023 Amendments to Rule 702 make clear, “the rule has been amended to clarify and emphasize that expert testimony may not be admitted unless the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the proffered testimony meets the admissibility requirements set forth in the rule.” Without proper medical qualifications and any identified
methodology, Winston’s opinion simply will not help the trier of fact.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Young V. Chipotle Mexican Grill Of Colorado, LLC Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv7452 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, New Jersey |
| Order Date: | June 26, 2025 |
