Packaging Expert’s New Opinion About the Shrink Wrap Excluded

On November 4, 2019, the Plaintiff, Cook Logistics, LLC filed a complaint alleging breach of contract for damage its cargo allegedly suffered while the Defendant, Equipment Express, Inc. transported it from Canada to Washington.

The Defendant’s expert witness, Lawrence Dull, concluded that the “damaged equipment in this case was caused by the failure of the shrink wrap used to encapsulate the equipment” and that “the failure of the shrink wrap was predictable.” 

On July 15, 2022, the Defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The Defendant attached a one-page document it identified as a supplement to the opinion of its previously disclosed expert witness, Lawrence Dull. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to strike the supplement to Dull’s report.

 

Packaging Expert Witness

Lawrence Dull is an IoPP Certified Packaging Professional with a B.S. and an M.S. in Packaging Technology from Michigan State University. With over twenty-five years of experience in managing technical packaging development groups, he has held positions with Eastman Kodak Company, Calgon Corporation and Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. He holds nine U.S. patents in the field of packaging and has won several awards in national packaging design competitions.

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

Discussion by the Court

The Court set a deadline of June 1, 2022 for the Defendant to disclose its expert witnesses. The Defendant did not disclose the addendum to Dull’s report until September 30, 2022. 

While Dull’s original report repeatedly noted that low temperatures affect the strength of shrink wrap, it said nothing about whether the duration of time the shrink wrap spends at low temperatures exacerbates that effect. But the addendum stated that the time that the shrink wrap spends at lower temperatures is “not important.” Since the addendum introduced a new opinion, the Court rejected the Defendant’s argument that the addendum only elaborates on Dull’s existing opinion.

The Defendant argued that it obtained the addendum to respond to a new argument the Plaintiff raised in its opposition to the summary judgment motion, but that position is belied by the fact that the addendum is dated July 14, 2022—almost two months before the Plaintiff filed its opposition brief.

Withholding the addendum until reply smells of bad faith or (at minimum) willfulness on the Defendant’s part. The Court found that this prejudiced the Plaintiff, who had no opportunity to address the addendum, effectively giving the Defendant the final say on the matter. The Defendant has not demonstrated that its failure to disclose the addendum was either justified or harmless.

Held

The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to strike the supplement to Lawrence Dull’s report. 

Key Takeaway:

The Defendant’s argument that the addendum only elaborates on Dull’s existing opinion is not persuasive. Dull’s original report stated throughout that low temperatures affect the strength of shrink wrap. It said nothing about whether the duration of time the shrink wrap spends at low temperatures exacerbates that effect. But the addendum stated that the time that the shrink wrap spends at lower temperatures is “not important.” That is a new opinion, not an elaboration.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Cook Logistics Llc V. Equipment Express Inc.
Docket Number:	United States District Court, Wisconsin Eastern
Court Name:	2:19cv1620
Order Date:	July 08, 2025