The case originated from a contract disagreement between Movie Prop Rentals LLC and Miami Prop Rentals LLC, businesses in the movie production sector, and The Kingdom of God Global Church, a not-for-profit religious organization. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants did not fulfill their part of a contract concerning the design and construction of a stage prop. They asserted that the Defendants did not make the necessary installment payments as stipulated in the contract. On the other side, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs’ insufficient progress in fabricating and constructing the stage prop released them from the responsibility to make additional payments.
The Plaintiffs submitted a Daubert motion claiming that the Defendants’ rebuttal expert, Kane Smith, lacked the qualifications necessary to offer an expert opinion regarding the completion and quality of the Stage Prop. Additionally, the Plaintiffs argued that Smith utilized an unreliable methodology when reviewing the Stage Prop.
Construction Expert Witness
Kane Smith is an independent insurance consultant with over twenty years of experience in the construction business. He specializes in managing complex construction projects “ranging from airports to power generation facilities.” He has experience managing projects on 3 continents with budgets ranging from $5 million to $3 billion.
Discussion by the Court
Smith, an independent insurance consultant specializing in overseeing diverse construction projects, was challenged by the Plaintiffs regarding his expertise in the specialized field of stage prop fabrication. While acknowledging Smith’s qualifications in general construction, the Plaintiffs argued that his lack of experience specifically in stage prop fabrication invalidated his expertise. In response, the Defendants emphasized Smith’s extensive construction management experience spanning over two decades, asserting it qualified him to testify about the overall completeness of the Stage Prop.
The Court ruled that Smith was qualified to testify regarding the Stage Prop’s overall completeness but acknowledged limitations as identified in his expert report. Plaintiffs contended that the disparity between complex construction projects and intricate stage prop fabrication rendered Smith unqualified to opine on the completeness of the Stage Prop. However, the Court found Smith’s experience, as detailed in his report and qualifications, sufficient for providing expert testimony on the construction and fabrication progress of the Stage Prop.
Although acknowledging Smith’s lack of knowledge in specific finishing work for the Stage Prop, deeming it different from his expertise, the Court considered this aspect as affecting the weight of Smith’s expert testimony rather than its admissibility. The Court permitted Smith to offer expert rebuttal testimony, constrained by the parameters outlined in his report.
The Plaintiffs contested the reliability of Smith’s methodology in assessing the overall completion of the Stage Prop. They argued that Smith’s inability to personally inspect the materials and the lack of sufficient documentation invalidated his expert opinion. The Defendants countered by stating that Smith’s review of a Dropbox containing various materials like budgets, design plans, photographs, and videos of the Stage Prop validated the reliability of his expert testimony.
Plaintiffs reiterated their stance, asserting that Smith’s methodology was unreliable based on his expert report and deposition testimony. Smith’s report explicitly mentioned limitations due to not being able to physically inspect the site or have comprehensive information about the construction milestones or fabrication process. Smith further acknowledged that he lacked an inventory to guide his review of the Stage Prop, instead remarking that he estimated its completeness based on plans and a count of columns and pieces, lacking an inventory for guidance.
However, referencing Federal Rule of Evidence 703, which permits experts to base opinions on provided facts or data, the Court noted that Smith had access to photographs, videos, design plans, and construction documents related to the Stage Prop. The Court deemed these materials sufficient for Smith to apply his expertise gained from complex construction projects, even though he acknowledged limitations in his review.
Acknowledging the limitations outlined in Smith’s report, the Court ruled that while the Plaintiffs’ challenges affected the weight of Smith’s assessment, they did not warrant exclusion. The Court advised that any deficiencies in Smith’s review could be addressed during cross-examination rather than being grounds for exclusion.
The Court concluded that Smith’s expert rebuttal testimony was beneficial for the jury, a point that the Plaintiffs did not contest. Smith aimed to offer rebuttal expert testimony regarding the completeness of the Stage Prop. The Court recognized the significance of this testimony in aiding the jury’s comprehension of the progress made in constructing and assembling the Stage Prop, pivotal aspects in determining whether the Plaintiffs fulfilled their obligations under the contract.
The Plaintiffs aimed to prevent the introduction of evidence or testimony by Defendants related to two specific aspects: the stage of construction of the Stage Prop and the percentage of payments made for it. They specifically sought to exclude Joseph Busch and Ashley Nicole Larimer from providing opinion testimony on these matters. Plaintiffs argued that neither Busch nor Larimer were qualified to give opinion testimony, lacked a proper foundation for such testimony, and their inclusion would result in undue prejudice. They pushed for the exclusion of these witnesses from discussing the current stage of construction, the overall percentage of completion, and the financial aspects regarding payments made to Plaintiffs in relation to the total completion.
Defendants countered by asserting that Busch and Larimer were fact witnesses relying on personal observations, making their testimony admissible. Plaintiffs maintained that both witnesses lack sufficient professional qualifications to testify on the Stage Prop’s completion and financial aspects. However, Defendants pointed out that Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admission of these witnesses’ testimony.
Plaintiffs also argued that allowing the opinion testimony of either witness would result in unfair prejudice, citing the witnesses’ supposed lack of adequate knowledge concerning the Stage Prop’s construction status and financial details. They suggested that these gaps may be addressed during cross-examination. Nonetheless, they stressed the relevance of this evidence to critical facts, such as the Stage Prop’s overall completion, the agreed-upon price, and the construction progress gauged by the Parties’ budgets.
The Court ultimately determined that while there might be potential shortcomings in the witnesses’ knowledge, these could be addressed through cross-examination. The evidence’s relevance to crucial facts such as the Stage Prop’s completion and the financial agreements outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice, leading to the conclusion that the probative value of this evidence is not significantly outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
The Plaintiffs aimed to prevent Defendants from introducing additional witnesses beyond those previously disclosed, namely, Joseph Busch, Ashley Nicole Larimer, and Kane Smith, arguing that doing so would cause undue prejudice. However, the issue of introducing undisclosed witnesses falls under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. This rule specifies that if a party fails to disclose information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), they cannot use that information or witness as evidence at trial unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.
Consequently, if Defendants attempt to present an undisclosed witness at trial, they must demonstrate that their failure to disclose that witness earlier was either substantially justified or harmless. Should Defendants establish this, the Court will then decide whether to allow the undisclosed witness, whether the jury should be informed about the non-disclosure, and if Defendants should face sanctions for the late disclosure. The Court, therefore, chose not to preemptively bar Defendants from introducing undisclosed witnesses at trial.
Defendants asserted five claims based on alleged breach of the Parties contract: Breach of Oral Contract (Count I); Unjust Enrichment in the Alternative (Count II); Breach of the Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count III); Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count IV); and a request for Temporary, Preliminary, and Permanent Injunctive Relief (Count V).
The Plaintiffs aimed to exclude evidence related to Counts II to V of the Defendants’ Counterclaim, arguing that allowing such evidence would result in undue prejudice. They based this argument on Defendants’ deposition testimony, suggesting that Defendants only intended to pursue Count I of their Counterclaim. However, the Court did not need to entertain this argument because its previous Order on the Motion for Summary Judgment had already granted Plaintiffs summary judgment on Counts II to V of Defendants’ Counterclaim.
The Plaintiffs sought to exclude any additional evidence regarding damages linked to travel and related expenses connected to the Defendants’ planned outreach event. Plaintiffs noted that Defendants identified their damages as the money paid under the contract and related travel expenses. Plaintiffs insisted that evidence of damages related to the outreach event should be confined to the redacted bank statements disclosed during discovery.
Similar to the request to limit undisclosed witnesses, Plaintiffs invoked Rule 37 concerning the admission of information not provided during discovery. If Defendants attempted to introduce further documentation regarding their travel and event-related expenses, which had not been previously disclosed, the Court would then assess the admissibility of such evidence under Rule 37.
Held
The Court denied Plaintiff’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert Kane Smith. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s request for an Order in Limine, in accordance with the foregoing, to bar all evidence referred to above which may be attempted to be adduced by Defendants at trial.
The Court has not arrived on an outcome for this case since the remaining issues involved in this case still await resolution.
Key Takeaways
The Plaintiffs contested the expertise of the expert witness, arguing that while he possessed extensive experience in construction management, his lack of specialization in the specific field of stage prop fabrication invalidated his opinion regarding the completeness of the Stage Prop. However, the Defendants countered by emphasizing the expert’s lengthy construction management background spanning over two decades, asserting that it qualified him to testify about the overall completeness of the Stage Prop.
The Court ruled that the expert, despite acknowledged limitations outlined in his report, was qualified to testify on the Stage Prop’s overall completeness. While the Plaintiffs highlighted the disparity between complex construction projects and intricate stage prop fabrication as a reason to discredit the expert’s opinion, the Court found his experience and qualifications sufficient for providing expert testimony on the construction and fabrication progress of the Stage Prop.
Although the Court acknowledged the expert’s lack of knowledge in specific finishing work for the Stage Prop, deeming it different from his expertise, it viewed this aspect as affecting the weight of his expert testimony rather than its outright admissibility. Thus, the Court permitted the expert to offer expert rebuttal testimony, confined within the parameters outlined in his report.
The reliability of the expert’s methodology was a point of contention. The Plaintiffs challenged the methodology, pointing out limitations in physical inspection and comprehensive information, which they argued undermined the expert’s opinion. However, the Defendants defended the reliability based on materials provided during discovery, including photographs, videos, design plans, and construction documents related to the Stage Prop.
The Court, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 703, noted that the expert had access to adequate materials to apply his expertise, despite acknowledging limitations in his review. It highlighted that while the deficiencies affected the weight of the expert’s assessment, they didn’t warrant exclusion, and could instead be addressed during cross-examination.
Ultimately, the Court recognized the significance of the expert’s testimony in aiding the jury’s comprehension of the construction progress of the Stage Prop, despite the challenges raised by the Plaintiffs.
Leave a Reply