Louisiana Minerals, Ltd., as lessor, and Weyerhaeuser, as lessee, are the successors in interest to a 1986 Timber Sale and Lease Contract (“Contract”).
LML asserted that Weyerhaeuser has entered into a significant number of unauthorized third-party agreements that impinge upon or adversely affect LML’s rights under the Contract. Damages were sought for harm caused by Weyerhaeuser’s alleged breach of contract and a declaration of the parties’ rights under the Contract to preclude Weyerhaeuser’s “unauthorized” activity going forward.
LML retained Ms. Helga A. Zauner to calculate their alleged damages in this action. She produced two reports, the first on December 15, 2023, and a supplemental report on February 29, 2024. Weyerhaeuser filed a Daubert motion to exclude the opinions of Zauner on the basis that they are both irrelevant and unreliable.
Weyerhaeuser, on the other hand, retained Ms. Lesa S. Adair who rendered a rebuttal to Zauner’s first expert report. LML filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Adair on the basis that she is unqualified, her methodologies are unreliable, and her opinions are not based on sufficient facts.
Forensic Accounting Expert Witness
Helga Abreu Zauner, CVA, CFE, MAFF, is a testifying expert witness with 27 years of experience in litigation consulting, financial analysis, banking, research and teaching. She focuses on financial modelling and statistical techniques, with extensive experience in quantitative data analysis.
Zauner is recognized as a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) by the Association of Fraud Examiners and as a Certified Valuation Analyst (CVA) and Master Analyst in Financial Forensics (MAFF) by the National Association of Certified Valuators and Analysts. In addition, she has built a successful practice as an expert witness in personal injury, family law, and commercial litigation.
Oil and Gas Industry Expert Witness
Lesa Shuyler Adair has a Bachelor’s Degree in Chemical Engineering and an MBA in Finance. She is a founder and principal of Pearson Adair & Co., and has more than 35 years’ experience in the energy industry. Adair also has served as an expert or consultant in many court and arbitration proceedings, assessing and analyzing damages in a variety of industries and contexts, including the oil and gas industry. She has written several energy related publications.
Discussion by the Court
Helga Zauner
Relevance
Weyerhaeuser asserted that Zauner’s testimony is irrelevant because her damage calculations were based upon third-party agreements selected by LML’s attorneys according to unknown and unverifiable criteria and because her calculations reflected a theory of disgorgement, which is not an available remedy for breach of contract under Louisiana law.
Having reviewed Zauner’s reports and the parties’ submissions, the Court found that Zauner’s testimony is relevant as it relates to and will aid the Court’s determination of damages. Zauner’s reports were based on assumptions of how the disputed facts might be resolved by the Court.
The third-party agreements that formed the basis of Zauner’s calculations were selected based on the assumption that they infringed on LML’s mineral rights. Her damage calculations were not based on a legal theory but were based on the assumption of what LML would have received from third parties in the absence of Weyerhaeuser’s third-party agreements.
Reliability
Weyerhaeuser contended that Zauner’s testimony is unreliable because she assumed breach of contract and causation of damages. Moreover, Weyerhaeuser argued that her extrapolation methods were faulty, she made unspecified corrections in her second report, she failed to consider Weyerhaeuser’s offsetting damages, and her analyses were based on LML’s counsel’s selection of agreements based on undisclosed criteria.
The Court disagreed with Weyerhaeuser’s assertion that there is “an unbridgeable gap” between Zauner’s opinions and the evidence in this case. Whether there is a breach of the contract that caused any damage to LML are core facts in dispute in this action. Moreover, Zauner’s calculations were not based on facts contradictory to the evidence in the record, but instead relied on assumptions of facts in dispute. In other words, the Court declared that Weyerhaeuser’s objections to Zauner’s opinions on the grounds of unreliability were ultimately rooted in the bases and sources of her opinions.
Adair Motion
First, LML claimed that Adair is not qualified to rebut the conclusions of Zauner, who is a credentialed forensic accountant. LML alleged that Adair is not qualified because she is not a forensic accountant and holds no licenses, certifications, or formal training in accounting.
Moreover, LML stated that no one on Adair’s analytical team holds any type of license or certification in accounting. LML also asserted that Adair lacked expertise in the subject matter of this case because she has never been retained by a timber company and there is no explanation of how her technical experience, as a chemical engineer, relates to her conclusions or how she applied her experience to the facts of this case.
Weyerhaeuser contended that this case did not involve forensic accounting, but a calculation of what third parties paid Weyerhaeuser for use of the surface. She was assisted by a team including a mechanical engineer, a financial analyst with an accounting degree, and a market research data analyst with a finance degree.
The Court found LML’s assertions that Adair is unqualified unconvincing. First, Adair herself has a master’s degree in finance and her team included others with a background in finance.
Further, the Court was persuaded by Weyerhaeuser’s argument that the damage calculations in dispute did not involve forensic accounting principles. Additionally, even though Adair has not been retained by a timber company before, her expertise in the oil and gas industry will aid the Court in resolving the disputed facts which form the basis of Zauner’s damage calculations.
Reliability
First, LML claimed that Adair’s report is unreliable because she only criticized Zauner’s opinion and did not conduct an independent analysis. LML also averred that Adair’s opinions are not based on sufficient facts and have not been reliably applied to the facts of this case.
The Court found that Adair’s critique of Zauner’s report was based on her independent analysis; further, any shortcomings of Adair’s analysis may be addressed on cross examination and will go to the weight of her testimony.
Held
The Court denied both Weyerhaeuser Company’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Helga Zauner and Louisiana Minerals, LTD.’s Daubert motion—or, in the alternative, motion in limine—to exclude or limit the testimony of Lesa Adair.
Key Takeaway:
While expert testimony is rightly excluded where an expert’s opinions are based on such speculative assumptions or alterations of fact that the testimony is no longer relevant and would not materially assist the trier of fact, making factually supported and non-speculative assumptions does not constitute valid grounds for disqualification of an expert opinion.
Just as with Zauner, Adair has relied on assumptions — which agreements to include, the value of certain agreements, whether administrative fees should be included, and whether LML would have received the same payments that Weyerhaeuser received from third parties — of facts in dispute in this case.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Louisiana Minerals Ltd V. Weyerhaeuser Company |
| Docket Number: | 5:22cv145 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division |
| Order Date: | June 18, 2025 |
Leave a Reply