In Rich v. Plumbing No. 1:23-cv-00705-SAG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2263, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland considered two motions for summary judgment, each arguing that the court should exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert. Although the court allowed the plaintiff to file a supplemental brief, it ultimately granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Consequently, the court deemed the testimony of the plaintiff’s one and only expert inadmissible.

The plaintiff, Whitney Rich, on behalf of C.W., brought this action after her young infant, C.W., suffered severe burns from a bathtub in their rental property. The plaintiff alleged that the landlord, Marilyn L. Dennison (Landlord), and the plumbing company, Dennison Plumbing & Heating, were liable for C.W.’s injuries because the excessively hot water temperature in the rental property resulted in the burns.