Cesari S.R.L. v. Peju Province Winery L.P. et al

Filing 438

ENDORSMENT: Peju's request for a Daubert hearing is denied. See ECF No. 432. As Peju's counsel recognizes, Daubert has a very limited role in the non-jury context. Given plaintiff's expert is a forensic accountant whose testimony is derived from documents provided by defendants, a Daubert hearing would not be productive. This is especially true because any issues defendants have with plaintiff's expert report itself can be raised at the scheduled trial. Additionall y, in order to prepare for trial, the Court directs defendants to provide, as was provided by plaintiff, all the documents and transcripts relied upon by defendants' expert in his report, using the same format as plaintiff. Three hard cop ies of this binder should be delivered to Chambers by Tuesday, June 20, 2023. Defendants should also email an electronic copy of the binder to the Chambers email by June 20, 2023. Finally, it has been the Court's int ention to follow at trial the common practice in this district to have the expert report constitute the direct examination of the expert, such that trial is essentially limited to cross examination and redirect. After receiving defendant's ex pert binder on Tuesday, we will conduct a conference to determine whether there may be any reason not to proceed in that fashion. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 6/14/2023) (mml)

Case 1:17-cv-00873-NRB Document 438 Filed 06/14/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
CESARI S.R.L.,
Plaintiff,

ENDORSEMENT

- against PEJU PROVINCE WINERY L.P., PEJU FAMILY
OPERATING PARTNERSHIP L.P., and PEJU
PROVINCE CORPORATION,

17 Civ. 873 (NRB)

Defendants.
---------------------------------------X
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Peju’s request for a Daubert hearing is denied.
432.

See ECF No.

As Peju’s counsel recognizes, Daubert has a very limited

role in the non-jury context.

Given plaintiff’s expert is a

forensic accountant whose testimony is derived from documents
provided by defendants, a Daubert hearing would not be productive.
This is especially true because any issues defendants have with
plaintiff’s expert report itself can be raised at the scheduled
trial.
Additionally, in order to prepare for trial, the Court directs
defendants to provide, as was provided by plaintiff, all the
documents and transcripts relied upon by defendants’ expert in his
report, using the same format as plaintiff.

Three hard copies of

this binder should be delivered to Chambers by Tuesday, June 20,

1

Case 1:17-cv-00873-NRB Document 438 Filed 06/14/23 Page 2 of 2

2023.

Defendants should also email an electronic copy of the

binder to the Chambers email by June 20, 2023.
Finally, it has been the Court’s intention to follow at trial
the common practice in this district to have the expert report
constitute the direct examination of the expert, such that trial
is essentially limited to cross examination and redirect.

After

receiving defendant’s expert binder on Tuesday, we will conduct a
conference to determine whether there may be any reason not to
proceed in that fashion.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
June 14, 2023
____________________________
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2