This case arises out of an alleged misrepresentation about whether a 2009 Steph Curry trading card (the “Curry Card”) was physically altered at the time Beckett examined and graded the card. Alt claims that Beckett negligently misrepresented the status of the card by assigning it a grade that did not reflect the alteration.
Alt retained Matthew Levine and Kaushik Mohan to testify “regarding the sports trading card industry, including with respect to the grading and the market value of sports trading cards and the Steph Curry Card at issue in this case.” Defendant filed a motion to strike and exclude Alt’s expert witnesses.
Pricing Expert Witnesses
Matthew Levine has been involved in the sports trading card industry since 2010, has priced over 25,000 unique assets, and works as a senior pricing analyst in the industry.
Kaushik Mohan runs the pricing team at Alt, has been a collector in the sports trading card industry for fifteen years, and has personally graded hundreds of cards.
Discussion by the Court
Levine and Mohan seek to assist the jury in understanding (1) what sports trading card grading is and what services a grading company provides, (2) what “trimming” means and why it impairs the price of collectibles, and (3) their opinions, based on their experience and the materials in the case, that the Curry Card was in the same condition when graded by Beckett in 2016 and when the alteration was discovered in 2022.
Beckett argues that the experts are not qualified to offer expert opinions on the grading industry or the value of the Curry Card, that they improperly offer legal conclusions, that their opinions are not relevant, and that their opinions are not reliable. The Court addresses each argument in turn.
A. Levine and Mohan are Qualified
The Court determined that the experts, Levine and Mohan, were qualified to provide testimony on the trading card industry and the value of the Steph Curry card in question. Both experts possessed significant practical experience, which the Court deemed sufficient in the absence of formal certification requirements for card grading.
Levine, a senior pricing analyst, regularly interacts with grading companies and understands industry expectations. Mohan, who manages pricing and has extensive personal grading experience, also demonstrated relevant knowledge. While Beckett challenged their qualifications to opine on card value, citing their reliance on an automated pricing tool, the Court acknowledged Levine’s involvement in developing the tool and his manual appraisal experience, as well as Mohan’s oversight of pricing accuracy. Ultimately, the Court concluded that their combined industry and pricing experience qualified them to offer expert opinions on grading practices and the card’s value.
B. Levine and Mohan May Opine on Industry Practices But May Not Make Improper Legal Conclusions
Beckett attempted to block the experts, Levine and Mohan, from testifying, arguing they were offering legal opinions instead of factual insights. The Court clarified that while experts can explain industry standards and practices, they cannot explicitly state legal conclusions like whether someone was “negligent” or “reasonably relied” on something.
Beckett specifically objected to three points: the experts’ opinions on Beckett’s alleged negligence, Alt’s reliance on Beckett’s grading, and whether card authenticity is an objective fact. However, the Court found that the experts’ testimony went beyond simply repeating legal terms. They explained the reasoning behind their opinions, discussed industry expectations for grading, and detailed how card alterations can be objectively measured. Although the experts used some legal terms, the Court determined that their testimony contained valuable, admissible information about industry practices. Therefore, the Court allowed their testimony, but instructed them to avoid directly stating legal conclusions.
C. Defendant’s Objections to the Relevance and Reliability of the Testimony Go to the Weight of Evidence
Beckett tried to argue that the experts’ opinions weren’t reliable. First, they said the experts just used documents provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel, not their own analysis. But the Court checked, and the experts had clearly listed all the materials they used, so that argument failed.
Then, Beckett claimed Levine was just giving personal opinions, not expert testimony. But the Court agreed with Alt, who said those opinions were based on Levine’s years of experience in the trading card industry. Just because Beckett thought they lacked “evidence” didn’t mean they weren’t valid expert opinions.
Finally, Beckett said the experts’ testimony didn’t match other evidence. The Court’s response was basically, “That’s what cross-examination is for.” If Beckett had conflicting evidence, they could bring it up when questioning the experts.
In short, the Court decided that Beckett’s complaints were about how convincing the experts’ testimony was, not whether it should be allowed at all. These issues were for the jury to weigh, not reasons to exclude the experts entirely.
Held
The Court ruled that the proffered expert opinions of Levine and Mohan satisfy the requirements of Rule 702. Accordingly, the Court denied the motions to exclude their testimony.
Key Takeaway:
Courts are reluctant to strike an entire expert testimony solely due to the presence of impermissible legal conclusions within the expert’s report, especially if the report also contains potentially admissible opinions. Even if an expert crosses the line by offering legal opinions they shouldn’t, the Court won’t necessarily throw out their entire testimony if there’s other useful, admissible information present.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Alt Platform Inc V. Beckett Collectibles LLC |
| Docket Number: | 3:22cv2867 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Texas Northern |
| Order Date: | March 11, 2025 |
Leave a Reply