Mechanical Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Liability Admitted

In June 2019, Plaintiff Anthony Rivieccio severed two fingers on his left hand while using a 10-inch Ryobi table saw, model number BTS10S (“Saw”).

Rivieccio introduced the liability expert report of Arthur G. Coons, P.E. Coons claimed that the Saw’s blade height adjustment mechanism was defective. According to Coons, the mechanism was defective because “the gap between the washer and the mounting plate . . . was improperly adjusted during assembly at the factory.”

Defendants filed a motion to strike the Coons Report in March 2025. They argue that the Court should exclude the Coons Report because Coons’ testing constituted spoliation and fraudulent concealment.

Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness

Arthur G. Coons is a licensed professional engineer in the state of New York. He has been a licensed engineer for over 45 years. He has a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Union College. Coons’ professional career has been centered around designing, building, and installing industrial machinery.

Want to know more about the challenges Arthur Coons has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

A. Spoliation

The decision to impose spoliation sanctions follows a two-step inquiry. First, the Court determines if spoliation has occurred. Then, the Court considers whether and what sanctions are warranted. Spoliation occurs if (1) “the evidence was in the [nonmoving] party’s control”; (2) “the evidence is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case”; (3) “there has been actual suppression or withholding of evidence”; and, (4) “the duty to preserve the evidence was reasonably foreseeable to the [non-moving] party.” The party seeking sanctions bears the burden of proof as to each element of the prima facie claim.

B. Fraudulent Concealment

New Jersey law permits Plaintiffs to recover in an independent action for harm caused in a prior proceeding by an adversary’s spoliation.

To prove the tort, a Plaintiff must establish five elements:

(1) The Defendant had a legal obligation to disclose evidence in connection with an existing or pending litigation;

(2) the evidence was material to the litigation;

(3) the Plaintiff could not reasonably have obtained access to the evidence from another source;

(4) the Defendant intentionally withheld, altered, or destroyed the evidence with purpose to disrupt the litigation; and

(5) the Plaintiff was damaged in the underlying action by having to rely on an evidential record that did not contain the evidence Defendant concealed.

Analysis

The first, second, and fourth prongs of the spoliation test are easily met. Plaintiff had physical possession of the Saw; the Saw is relevant to this case because it purportedly caused Plaintiff’s injury; and because Plaintiff alleges the Saw caused his injuries, he had a reasonably foreseeable duty to preserve it.

The third prong, “actual suppression,” merits closer consideration; however, “the mere destruction or loss of evidence in and of itself does not make out a claim for actionable spoliation; more must be shown.”

Defendants offered no proof of bad faith. They did not allege or argue that Plaintiff and Coons ran tests on the Saw “in order to prevent it from being used by the adverse party.” This record “simply does not have evidence . . . supporting bad faith intent.”

Defendants, therefore, did not establish actual suppression or actionable spoliation. Their fraudulent concealment claim fell short for the same reason: Defendants failed to prove Plaintiff “intentionally withheld, altered, or destroyed the evidence with purpose to disrupt the litigation.”

The Defendants stated that, if the Court denied the instant motion, they would seek to depose Coons and file a renewed motion to strike pursuant to Daubert. The Court, therefore, denied the instant motion without prejudice and granted the Defendants leave to depose Coons and file a renewed motion to strike.

Held

The Defendants’ motion to strike the testimony of Arthur Coons was denied without prejudice by the Court.

Key Takeaway:

A finding of bad faith is pivotal to a spoliation determination. Here, Defendants offered no proof of bad faith. Defendants, therefore, did not establish actual suppression or actionable spoliation.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Rivieccio V. Ryobi Technologies, Inc.
Docket Number:	2:21cv14208
Court Name:	United States District Court, New Jersey
Order Date:	October 31, 2025