This case involves a contract dispute between the Douglas and Amy Mottram and Robert Radke. Prior to 2018, the Mottrams entered into four joint ventures with Radke, in which Radke would buy land in California, on which the Mottrams would construct homes to be resold for mutual profit. Beginning in 2018, the Mottrams and Radke decided to pursue a similar strategy in Kauai, purchasing two plots of land (“Lot C” and “Lot D”) using funds from both parties. The parties did not enter into a written contract for this Kauai joint venture, and, perhaps predictably, its exact nature and terms are in dispute.
What is clear is that by 2023, the business relationship between the Mottrams and Radke had disintegrated due to, inter alia, conflict over the division of profits from Lot D, personal usage of the Kauai properties, and the Mottrams’ alleged siphoning of funds for a separate project with a third-party. On March 17, 2026, the Mottrams filed the instant motion, asserting that the Court should disqualify Radke’s proffered expert witness, Ross R. Murakami, on the grounds that his expert opinions failed to meet the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Accounting Expert Witness
Ross R. Murakami has extensive experience in the real estate, construction, government, insurance, distribution, and retail industries, with over thirty-five years of experience providing audit, accounting, and consulting services to organizations based in Hawai‘i and the Pacific Basin and on the West Coast.
Discussion by the Court
I. Rule 408
The Mottrams argued that Murakami’s expert report relied in part on information provided during settlement negotiations in violation of Rule 408.
The Mottrams argued that the portions of Murakami’s report that rely upon the spreadsheet, namely Tables 7, 8, and 14 of Section III, should be excluded under Rule 408.
Rule 408 is clear in stating that “a statement made during compromise negotiations” cannot be used to “prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim.” Rule 408 is clear in stating that “a statement made during compromise negotiations” cannot be used to “prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim.” The spreadsheet, prepared and provided as it was for the purposes of settlement, and used by Murakami to support his damages opinions, is unambiguously protected by Rule 408.
During oral argument, Radke’s counsel proposed that Murakami be permitted to amend the portions of his report that rely on the spreadsheet. The Court declines to open that window. Put simply, a party is not entitled to correct a problem of their own making, particularly one so glaring as a violation of Rule 408.
II. Insufficient Facts
The Mottrams next argued that Murakami’s opinions should be excluded because he relied upon inaccurate interpretations of the record. The Mottrams claimed that those opinions failed to account for contradictory facts in the record and instead relied on mere assumptions provided by Radke’s counsel; therefore, they are not based on sufficient facts and data.
The Court takes no position as to whether the Mottrams are correct in arguing that there is evidence contradicting Murakami’s opinions, precisely because doing so at this time is unnecessary and contrary to the Court’s assigned role.
III. Reliability
The Mottrams argued that Murakami was unable to identify or utilize any reliable accounting standards or authorities supporting his methods.
Radke, on the other hand, argued that Murakami abided by professional standards in his analysis and that, beyond this, the field of forensic accounting does not have a single, uniform methodology to which he should have adhered.
To begin, the Court agreed with Radke that Murakami’s expert opinions are not rooted in scientific evidence, given that forensic accounting is a specialized field in which factors like error rates or peer review are not accepted indicators of reliability.
Accordingly, the focus of the reliability inquiry “depends heavily on the knowledge and expertise of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory behind it.”
The Court is not convinced, however, by the Mottrams’ arguments. The Mottrams go too far in asserting that Murakami’s deposition testimony is proof of a lacking methodology. Murakami testified that there was not a single “professional standard” for calculating certain figures in his analysis, but-as Radke argued-that is merely a result of forensic accounting not having universal, scientific standards in the same way as other fields of expertise.
Finally, the Mottrams also asserted that Murakami did not apply his methodology reliably because “Radke’s counsel instructed Murakami to assume that Radke’s share of the profits should be based on his share of capital contributions,” which the Mottrams argue was a flawed understanding of the case. Again, however, whether to exclude an expert does not depend on the “correctness of the expert’s conclusions,” and Murakami’s reliance on an assumption provided by counsel did not offer a basis to find he applied his methodology unreliably.
The Court found that Murakami’s expert opinions have demonstrated sufficient reliability, and the Mottrams’ motion to disqualify on those grounds is denied.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Mottrams’ motion to disqualify expert witness, Ross Murakami.
Key Takeaway
While Rule 703 permits experts some leeway in basing their opinions on inadmissible evidence, courts have determined that it cannot be used to admit evidence excluded by Rule 408.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Mottram V. Radke |
| Docket Number: | 1:25cv45 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Hawaii |
| Order Date: | June 16, 2026 |
Leave a Reply