United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
SOUTHAMPTON, LTD. and SOUTHWEST REINSURANCE, INC., Plaintiffs,
VAHID SALALATI, GREGORY LUSTER, and ROGER ELY, Defendants.
MILES-LAGRANGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is defendants' Daubert Motion and
Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Identified Expert Witnesses,
filed July 3, 2017. On July 21, 2017, plaintiffs filed their
response. Based upon the parties' submissions, the Court
makes its determination.
5, 2017, plaintiffs filed their list of expert witnesses,
including Bill Bigley and Emmett Rice. Plaintiffs state that
Mr. Bigley will provide expert testimony regarding basic
corporate financial documents (i.e., tax returns,
bank statements, and balance sheets) and how to interpret
what those documents reveal. Plaintiffs further state that
Mr. Rice is a highly respected car dealer in Amarillo and was
one of the potential bidders for the assets held in
receivership at issue in this case.
now move this Court to strike Mr. Bigley and Mr. Rice and
preclude them from testifying at trial. Specifically,
defendants contend that these witnesses should be stricken
because plaintiffs failed to comply with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). Defendants further contend that
these witnesses should be stricken pursuant to Federal Rules
of Evidence 620, 701, and 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its
Failure to provide an expert report pursuant to Rule
26(a)(2)(B) provides, in pertinent part:
(B) Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report.
Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this
disclosure must be accompanied by a written report - prepared
and signed by the witness - if the witness is one retained or
specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or
one whose duties as the party's employee regularly
involve giving expert testimony. . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
assert that Mr. Bigley and Mr. Rice were required to provide
an expert report pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and that they
failed to do so. Defendants, therefore, contend that Mr.
Bigley and Mr. Rice should be stricken as expert witnesses in
this case. Having carefully reviewed the parties'
submissions, the Court finds that neither Mr. Bigley nor Mr.
Rice were required to provide an expert report. Specifically,
the Court finds that Mr. Bigley is an employee of plaintiffs
who is not regularly involved in giving expert testimony and,
thus, an expert report by Mr. Bigley is not required under
Rule 26(a)(2)(B). The Court further finds that Mr. Rice has
not been retained or specially employed by plaintiffs to
provide expert testimony in this case and, thus, an expert
report by Mr. Rice is not required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Bigley and Mr. Rice
should not be stricken on this basis.
assert that plaintiffs' experts' opinions fall short
of the requirements of Rule 702 and Daubert because
(1) both Mr. Bigley and Mr. Rice have no specialized training
or experience which qualifies them to provide expert
testimony on the relevant issues in this case, and (2) Mr.
Bigley's and Mr. Rice's opinions are not based on
personal knowledge, are unreliable and unfairly prejudicial,
and do not assist the trier of fact. Federal Rule of Evidence
702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony based upon
scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. It
witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence ...