There was no motion (AFAIK) to block his testimony through legal means.
he ignored them, defense submitted formal complaint, board ended up seeking declaratory judgment that both his research and his testimony separately violate the Engineering and Land Surveying Act
from the opinion https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opi...
> The Board seeks a counter-declaration that Nutt's engineering work for the plaintiffs in the Autry litigation, including his engineering calculations, analysis, and resulting expert report, constituted the unauthorized practice of engineering. The Board also seeks the same declaration regarding "testifying at the discovery depositions in support of the work contained in the expert report prepared by Wayne Nutt."
In general though I think the legal system worked pretty well here. I don't think the board's initial position was crazy. The dispute was escalated to federal court, and the court made a pretty reasonable judgment. Probably could have happened faster though.
Edit: trimmed my comment so that it's less cranky. Merry Christmas!
https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/706-2
nothing about specific licensing
also NC is a daubert state, which I think means you can attack the testimony's methodology via motion in limine, but doesn't add anything about the expert's qualification
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard
that said the engineering + survey act seems fairly clear that evaluating the safety of a public work constitutes 'practice'. if dude has 20+ yoe he could just take the exam under the 13(a3) long-established practice section
https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bycha...