North Shore Lodging LLC v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
Filing
55
ORDER denying 23 , 24 Motions to Exclude Experts, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm) Modified text on 7/1/2014 (ecm).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NORTH SHORE LODGING, LLC
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 13‐6070
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INS. CO.
SECTION: “H”(5)
ORDER
Before the Court are two Motions to Exclude experts filed by Defendant (Docs. 23 & 24).
For the following reasons, both Motions are DENIED. The admissibility of expert testimony is
governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which provides:
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 current version of Rule 702 reflects the Supreme Court's decisions in Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137
(1999). The threshold inquiry is whether the expert possesses the requisite qualifications to render
opinion on a particular subject matter. Wagoner v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 813 F.Supp.2d 771, 799
(E.D.La.2011); see also Wilson v. Woods, 163 F.3d 935, 937 (5th Cir. 1999) ("A district court should
refuse to allow an expert witness to testify if it finds that the witness is not qualified to testify in
1
a particular field or on a given subject."). Having defined the permissible scope of the expert's
testimony, a court next inquires whether the opinions are reliable and relevant. See United States
v. Valencia, 600 F.3d 389, 424 (5th Cir. 2010). In undertaking this tripartite analysis, courts must
give proper deference to the traditional adversary system and the role of the jury within that
system. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. "Vigorous cross‐examination, presentation of contrary
evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means
of attacking shaky but admissible evidence." Id. As the "gatekeeper" of expert testimony, id. at
597, the trial court enjoys broad discretion in determining admissibility. Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture,
L.L.P., 716 F.3d 867, 881 (5th Cir. 2013).
Defendant first moves the Court to exclude Todd Boolos, a CPA retained by Plaintiff.
Defendant argues that the Court should exclude the testimony of Mr. Boolos because of alleged
credibility issues and because Mr. Boolos does not possess a Louisiana CPA license. Defendant
does not dispute that Mr. Boolos is a licensed CPA in Mississippi or that Mr. Boolos passed the
national CPA exam.1 Defendant also raises some objections regarding Mr. Boolos' methodology.
The Court has reviewed the submissions of the parties and finds that the objections raised by
Defendant are more appropriately addressed on cross‐examination. Accordingly, the Motion to
Exclude Mr. Boolos is DENIED.
Defendant next moves to exclude James Mitchell, a licensed certified real estate appraiser.
Defendant does not challenge Mr. Mitchell's qualifications. Instead, Defendant argues that Mr.
1
The Court notes that Mr. Boolos did receive a reciprocal Louisiana CPA license on the basis of his
license in Mississippi. That license is currently lapsed due to non‐payment of dues, an issue unrelated to Mr.
Boolos' qualifications as an expert.
2
Mitchell employed improper methodology in coming to his conclusions. However, a close reading
of Mr. Mitchell's report and that of Defendant's competing expert, Mr. Truax, reveals that Mr.
Mitchell's methodology is not so improper as to render his opinions unreliable. Rather, it appears
that this matter presents a classic case of competing experts. The jury, not the Court, should
resolve this dispute. Mr. Truax will be free to testify regarding his opinion of Mr. Mitchell's
appraisal (and vice versa) and that parties will be free to vigorously cross examine the experts.
Such is the manner in which courts have traditionally resolved these disputes. See Daubert, 509
U.S. at 596. Accordingly, the Motion to Exclude Mr. Mitchell is also DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, on this 1st day
3
of July, 2014.
____________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?