Electric Mirror, LLC v. Avalon Glass and Mirror Company et al

Filing 124

ORDER denying Defendant's 118 Motion in Limine signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

1

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11

ELECTRIC MIRROR, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,

No. 2:16-cv-00665-RAJ
ORDER

13
14
15

v.
AVALON GLASS AND MIRROR CO.,

16

Defendant.

17
18
19

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion in limine.

Dkt. #

20

118. Defendant moves to exclude the expert report and testimony of Douglas McDaniel.

21

Parties may file motions in limine before or during trial “to exclude anticipated prejudicial

22

evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2

23

(1984).

24
25
26
27

Plaintiff engaged Mr. McDaniel to calculate lost profits allegedly resulting from
Plaintiff’s rebuild of custom mirrors for the Mandalay Bay Project. Defendant argues that
Mr. McDaniel failed to account for a large number of variables that would presumably
negatively affect his analysis. Expert testimony is a sufficient basis for an award of lost

28
ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5

profits, but expert opinion must be based on upon tangible evidence, and not speculation or
hypothetical situations. Farm Crop Energy, Inc. v. Old Nat. Bank of Washington, 109 Wash.
2d 923, 928, 750 P.2d 231, 234 (1988). There is no indication that Mr. McDaniel’s expert
opinion is not based on tangible evidence, only that the parties do not agree on what factors
should be considered in the lost profit analysis. While the parties’ arguments are relevant for

6

the Court to consider when calculating possible damages, Defendant does not provide
7

convincing argument that Mr. McDaniel’s testimony and expert report should be excluded in
8

its entirety or that his opinion as an expert does not meet the standard for inclusion at trial.
9

Defendant’s attack on Mr. McDaniel’s regression analysis or the variables they contend were
10
11
12
13

not considered are relevant to weight not admissibility. Defendant will have the opportunity
to challenge the analysis on cross-examination but no further relief is warranted at this time.
Defendant’s Motion to exclude the expert report and testimony of Mr. McDaniel is DENIED.

14
15

Dated this 5th day of November, 2018.

16
17

19

A

20

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 2