United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, St. Joseph Division
ORDER AND OPINION (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE, AND (2) GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
are Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. #260), and
Defendants' Motion to Exclude (Doc. #261). For the
following reasons, both motions are granted in part and
denied in part.
admission of expert testimony is governed by Rule 702 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence.
A 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 or to determine a fact in
issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or
data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles
and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702. The district court must make a
“preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or
methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid
and of whether that reasoning or methodology can be applied
to the facts in issue.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93 (1993). The Court
uses a three-part test when determining the admissibility of
First, evidence based on scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge must be useful to the finder of fact in
deciding the ultimate issue of fact. This is the basic rule
of relevancy. Second, the proposed witness must be qualified
to assist the finder of fact. Third, the proposed evidence
must be reliable or trustworthy in an evidentiary sense, so
that, if the finder of fact accepts it as true, it provides
the assistance the finder of fact requires.
Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 270 F.3d 681, 686 (8th
Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
“Courts should resolve doubts regarding usefulness of
an expert's testimony in favor of admissibility.”
Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748, 758
(8th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
designated Steve Browne as its expert. Browne is a certified
public accountant, financial analyst, and fraud examiner. He
holds undergraduate degrees in accounting and finance, and a
master's degree in economics.
argue Browne should not be permitted to express opinions
about what caused Plaintiff's damages because opinions on
causation implicate a question of law. Defendants also
maintain Browne, an accountant, is not an expert on what
former employees may legally do with respect to former
intends to call Browne to opine on Plaintiff's damages,
and the cause(s) of Plaintiff's damages. Browne's
opinions are based upon his knowledge and experience, his
review of documents produced during the course of this
matter, deposition testimony, Sprint Lumber's point of
sales database, preliminary injunction briefing and exhibits,
Defendants' responses and answers to discovery, and
Defendants' expert's report. Doc. #262-1. The Court
believes Browne is qualified to provide opinions about
Plaintiff's damages and the cause(s) of those damages.
The Court also finds that Browne's opinions, if accepted
as true, will assist the jury. See Synergetics, Inc. v.
Hurst, 477 F.3d 949, 955-56 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding the
district court did not abuse ...