This legal malpractice action arises from Defendants’ representation of Plaintiffs in an eminent domain proceeding involving the Westside Connector project. Defendants retained Kannon Conway, Esq., an experienced eminent domain attorney, to opine on the applicable standard of care and the viability of a challenge to the taking. Conway concluded that any such challenge would have been futile.
The Plaintiffs, however, filed a motion to exclude Conway’s testimony and expert report, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).
Law And Legal Expert Witness
Kannon C. Conway, Esq. routinely advises and represents property owners whose property is being taken by governmental entities under the power of eminent domain.
Conway is also the current Tennessee-affiliate member of the Owners’ Counsel of America, a nationwide network of leading eminent domain lawyers dedicated to representing property owners.
Discussion by the Court
Conway opined that: the Defendants complied with the duty they owed to the Plaintiffs as their clients in an attorney-client relationship; the Defendants acted within the scope of their engagement by the Races; the Defendants provided sound legal advice and adequately communicated this advice; they took appropriate steps to protect the Races’ financial interests; they provided competent representation in the Underlying Case; and the Races did not suffer harm as the result of any alleged breach of duty by the Defendants.
Analysis
The Court found, as an initial matter, that the Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude is not in compliance with Local Rule 7.01(a)(1), which requires a certification that counsel has conferred with counsel for the opposing party before filing the motion and a statement of whether the relief requested is opposed. On that basis alone, the motion is subject to denial.
Further, the Court found, based on its review of the motion to exclude and the documents filed by both parties, that neither exclusion of the Defendants’ expert’s report nor any other sanction is warranted under Rule 37(a). The Plaintiffs simply have not identified any discovery violation. At most, they contended that the Defendants did not supply all available discovery materials to their expert, but they do not contend that the Defendants withheld discovery from them (though it appears that the Plaintiffs may have withheld documents from the defendants).
As for exclusion under Rule 702, the Court, in performing its gatekeeping function under that rule, found that Conway is qualified to testify on the subject matter of his report and that his proffered opinions are both reliable and relevant.
Regardless, Conway’s report and deposition testimony made clear what documents he did rely on, and the purported factual discrepancies identified by the Plaintiffs are not material, were adequately explained and resolved during Conway’s deposition, or are not factual discrepancies at all. His opinions clearly “rest upon a reliable foundation, as opposed to, say, unsupported speculation,” and there is no mismatch between those opinions and the facts of this case. Supplementation is not warranted at this juncture, and the Plaintiffs have failed to show that the defendants were required to include with their expert disclosures any documents not already disclosed.
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Kannon Conway.
Key Takeaway
An expert cannot be expected to review documents that were not produced in discovery, nor is he necessarily required to review every document produced in the case.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Race V. Gault |
| Docket Number: | 3:24cv1437 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Tennessee Middle |
| Order Date: | July 17, 2026 |
Leave a Reply