In this action, the Frazier Parties alleged that the Eagle Air Parties lacked probable cause to sue them for defamation and other similar claims in an underlying lawsuit that concluded in 2020 (the “Underlying Action”). The Frazier Parties claimed that the Underlying Action damaged Sentinel’s existing or prospective client relationships, resulting in lost profits of at least several million dollars.
Jeffrey Frazier brought a claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings. A claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings requires a Plaintiff to show, among other things, that the Defendant acted without probable cause. Frazier’s expert, Professor Jane Bambauer‘s proposed testimony sought to opine as to the existence (or lack thereof) of probable cause for the claims in the underlying suit.
Defendants Eagle Air Med Corporation and Valley Med Flight, Inc. filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Jane Bambauer.
Law And Legal Expert Witness
Jane Bambauer is a part-time faculty member at University of Arizona Law. Bambauer teaches and studies the fundamental problems of well-intended technology policies. Bambauer’s research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, and how new information technologies affect free speech, privacy, and competitive markets. She also serves as the co-deputy director of the Center for Quantum Networks, a multi-institutional engineering research center funded by the National Science Foundation, where she facilitates research on economic and regulatory policy for emerging markets in quantum technologies.
Discussion by the Court
Professor Bambauer’s proposed testimony sought to apply the law to the evidence in a way that invaded both the province of the Court and the jury. While Professor Bambauer is eminently qualified, her expert report reads like a motion for summary judgment or the answer to a law school exam (though not a challenging one in Professor Bambauer’s estimation).
Professor Bambauer “cites to and discusses the analysis and holdings of case law, and then [s]he applies this legal authority to selected facts and evidence to reach legal conclusions. [Her] expert opinions are nothing more than legal analysis aimed at instructing on the law, how the facts and evidence should be applied to the law, and how the case should ultimately be decided.” The Court believed that allowing Professor Bambauer to testify in this manner would usurp the Court’s role in instructing the jury and would improperly dictate to the jury the conclusion it should reach.
Held
The Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ proposed expert Jane Bambauer.
Key Takeaway:
The line between a permissible opinion on an ultimate issue and an impermissible legal conclusion is not always easy to discern. However, it is generally accepted that “an expert may not state legal conclusions drawn by applying the law to the facts.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Frazier Et Al V. Eagle Air Med Corporation Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv300 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Utah |
| Order Date: | August 27, 2024 |
Leave a Reply