Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Entertainment Industry Expert Witness

  • Entertainment Industry Expert Not Allowed to Opine on a Party’s Mental State

    Entertainment Industry Expert Not Allowed to Opine on a Party’s Mental State

    In this breach-of-contract suit stemming from an exclusive license to present a live touring show of the popular children’s show, CoComelon, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant CCM Touring LLC and Counterclaim Defendant S2BN Entertainment Corporation (“S2BN”) (collectively, the “CCM Parties”) sought to exclude the opinions and testimony of Eric Grilly and George Wade, experts for Defendant/Counterclaimant Moonbug Entertainment Ltd. and Counterclaimant Treasure Studio Inc.

    The Moonbug Parties also sought to exclude certain opinions and testimony of Michael Olsen and Felix Barrett, experts for the CCM Parties.

    Entertainment Industry Expert Witnesses

    Eric Grilly is a seasoned live entertainment executive who has worked in the live entertainment industry for over twenty years and in the live family
    entertainment and touring section for over fifteen years.

    Want to know more about the challenges Eric Grilly has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    George Wade is an expert in the licensing of intellectual property rights, specializing in live entertainment licensing practices. Wade has over 44 years of experience in the location-based entertainment industry and has worked in the acquisition and licensing of intellectual property for location-based entertainment applications for the past three decades.

    Discover more cases with George Wade as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Michael Olsen has worked exclusively in the entertainment industries since 1979, during which time he has worked on more than 500 live shows and productions and gained experience in virtually every facet of a live production.

    Get the full story on challenges to Michael Olsen’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Felix Barrett is the founder and artistic director of a British theater company that specializes in participatory and immersive productions and is well-known for creating “Sleep No More,” a retelling of Shakespeare’s “Macbeth.”

    Want to know more about the challenges Felix Barrett has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Eric Grilly

    First Opinion

    First, the CCM Parties argued that Grilly’s opinion as to Moonbug’s lost royalty revenues is actually a “lost profits” opinion that should be excluded because it “improperly relies on speculative financial projections instead of the actual financial performance of two live CoComelon tours.”

    Grilly based his opinion on financial projections created by others, which he did not independently verify in the context of projecting future earnings for a new business venture.

    To be sure, an expert’s use of assumptions or projections in calculating lost profits is not necessarily fatal, if the assumptions or projections are reliable. But, here, Grilly took no steps to independently assess the reliability of the projections prepared by CCM or Round Room, or the assumptions relied on in preparing those projections.

    Second Opinion

    Next, the CCM Parties attacked Grilly’s opinion that CCM failed to use its best endeavors to tour CoComelon Live. Grilly opined that CCM failed to tour CoComelon Live consistent with industry practice concerning the frequency of live family entertainment shows.

    However, testimony about industry norms and customs in this regard is likely to help a jury evaluate the ultimate issues in the case, not confuse it, because Moonbug contends that the failure of CCM to use its best endeavors to tour—i.e. to tour consistent with industry practice—amounts to a breach of the agreement or a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

    Third Opinion

    Additionally, the CCM Parties misstate Grilly’s testimony when they argue that he opines that CCM breached the best endeavors provision of the CoComelon Live Agreement. But Grilly never opined that CCM breached the agreement. Nor does Grilly opine that CCM breached any best endeavors clause in the contract. Instead, Grilly offered testimony about the industry custom for the frequency with which live family shows typically tour and ultimately opines that CCM’s touring plan did not align with those industry practices.

    Consequently, the Court found that Grilly’s testimony on whether CCM used best endeavors to tour CoComelon Live—as understood in industry parlance—is admissible.

    Fourth Opinion

    Finally, Grilly opined that CoComelon Live did not make a profit because its operational expenses were too high. Moonbug concedes that Grilly “cannot testify” that the high operational costs “is the reason that CCM ultimately stopped touring.”

    But Grilly has not opined that the high operational costs are the reason CCM stopped touring. Instead, Grilly opined that the high operational costs were the reason the tour did not make a profit and was not successful.

    That the tour’s operational costs were high and led to financial losses is well within Grilly’s area expertise and permissible expert testimony.

    In sum, the Court found all of Grilly’s opinions are admissible, save for his lost royalties opinion.

    B. George Wade

    First Opinion

    First, the CCM Parties attacked Wade’s assertion that “the central question is whether CoComelon Party Time should be considered a singular immersive experience or classified as a live theatrical offering.” The CCM Parties argued that this question is irrelevant and will not assist the trier of fact.

    Wade opined that CoComelon Party Time is “a singular immersive experience” and not a “show.” He opined that industry practice distinguishes between “show” rights and “immersive” rights. Wade’s opinion goes to whether CoComelon Party Time is of the same ilk of entertainment offering as CoComelon Live, such that it was a “show” and thus part of the exclusive rights granted under the agreement. Therefore, the Court found that Wade’s testimony is relevant and helpful to the jury.

    Second Opinion

    Second, the CCM Parties aver that Wade “improperly interprets the evidence” by opining that Moonbug mitigated the risks of consumer confusion through “routing insulation.”

    The CCM Parties provided no authority to support their contention that Wade’s opinion about Moonbug’s risk mitigation (or lack thereof) must be excluded because he purportedly ignored two pieces of evidence favorable to the CCM Parties. To the contrary, an expert need not agree with “witness testimony concerning the objects of his analysis.”

    Third Opinion

    Third, the CCM Parties contended that Wade improperly opined on a party’s mental state. Specifically, the CCM Parties pointed to Wade’s opinion that “S2BN appears to be aware of the distinction between theatrical shows (like CoComelon Live) and immersive experiences (like CoComelon Party Time and CoComelon Play Date) and how they utilize different rights.”

    Wade opined that the CCM Parties “appeared to be aware” of the distinction between theatrical shows and immersive experiences in a way that is “consistent with industry custom.”

    This opinion is impermissible because Wade goes beyond the bounds of explaining what another party in the relevant industry would have commonly understood based on industry practice. Instead, Wade extrapolates from the factual record that he believes the CCM Parties were purportedly aware of a distinction between a show and an immersive experience, relying on documents for which he has no personal knowledge. The Court held that Wade is speculating on a party’s mental state and usurping the jury’s role of interpreting the evidence and drawing inferences and conclusions from that evidence.

    Fourth Opinion

    Finally, the CCM Parties faulted Wade for including “irrelevant and unhelpful information” in his report, such as a historical overview of amusement parks, a discussion of the impact of the industrial revolution on amusement parks, a discussion of the impact of virtual and augmented reality on immersive experiences, and a forecast of the future of location-based entertainment, among other things.

    Experts may explain background material to the extent it is relevant to their analyses and useful to the jury, and any excessive factual narration can be curtailed at trial.

    Wade’s testimony in this regard offers a backdrop of the industry at issue—the live entertainment or “location-based entertainment industry”—and provides context for his opinion as to the regular customs and practices of that industry.

    Of course, to the extent Wade at trial provides such historical testimony and the testimony is excessive, duplicative, or irrelevant, the CCM Parties may object, but it is not a basis for exclusion at this stage.

    Accordingly, the Court found all of Wade’s opinions are admissible, except his testimony as to the CCM Parties’ awareness of the distinction between theatrical shows and immersive experiences.

    C. Michael Olsen

    Qualification

    The Moonbug Parties argued that Olsen is not qualified to opine on “licensing practices within the live touring industry” or “matters related to the actual planning of a tour (such as tour routing, touring cadence, or the meaning of ‘show’ within the industry and whether that meaning includes ‘immersive experiences’).”

    The Court held that Olsen’s general live entertainment industry experience, with regards to theatrical shows and concerts, coupled with Olsen’s specific experience at Round Room with live touring family shows specifically, suffice to permit him to testify as an expert here.

    Legal Conclusions

    The Moonbug Parties accused Olsen of providing improper legal conclusions concerning the interpretation of the CoComelon Live Agreement.

    Experts are permitted to testify about the “custom and usage” of terms in a particular industry. In addition to the customary usage of industry terms, experts may also testify about whether a party’s actions comport with industry customs and standards. However, Olsen overstepped his role by opining on a question for the jury—namely, whether Moonbug breached the right of exclusivity, rendering CCM’s decision to stop touring reasonable.

    D. Felix Barrett

    The Moonbug Parties attacked only Barrett’s third opinion—that immersive experiences implicate different rights from live shows—on the grounds that it is an improper legal conclusion.

    Barrett responded to Wade’s opinion, explaining that in his experience, immersive experiences and live shows do not involve separate rights unless there are express contractual provisions saying so.

    That opinion directly responded to Wade’s opinion that the two types of productions involve distinct rights, and it also addresses what Wade believes is industry practice. As the CCM Parties correctly argue, the Moonbug Parties cannot simultaneously argue that Wade is offering testimony about industry custom while attacking the CCM Parties’ expert as impermissibly offering a legal conclusion. At bottom, Wade and Barrett are both offering the same type of opinion about the industry custom surrounding the rights associated with two types of productions. Because Barrett exclusively discusses customs, standards, and generalities surrounding the rights associated with different types of productions, the Court found this testimony both helpful to the jury and admissible.

    Held

    • The Court granted in part and denied in part the CCM Parties’ motion to exclude the testimony of Eric Grilly and George Wade.
    • The Court granted in part and denied in part the Moonbug Parties’ motion to strike the testimony of Michael Olsen and Felix Barrett.

    Key Takeaway

    It is well settled that an expert cannot offer evidence about a party’s state of mind. An expert’s testimony must be directed to matters within the witness’ scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge and not to lay matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert’s help.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: CCM Touring LLC v. Moonbug Entertainment Ltd.
    Docket Number: 1:23cv7116
    Court Name: United States District Court, New York Southern
    Order Date: March 27, 2026
  • Relying on Personal Intuition Is Not a Valid Methodology for an Entertainment Industry Expert

    Relying on Personal Intuition Is Not a Valid Methodology for an Entertainment Industry Expert

    This copyright infringement action concerns two musical works: Plaintiff, Rene Lorente Garcia’s 1998 song Algo Diferente (“AD”), and the 2021 track Don’t Be Shy (“DBS”), performed by Tijs Michiel Verwest (“Tiësto”) and Carolina Giraldo-Navarro (“Karol G”). 

    Plaintiff brought two claims: direct infringement against Karol G and Tiësto (“Count I”); and contributory and vicarious infringement against Atlantic Recording Corporation (“Atlantic”), Kobalt Music Publishing America, Inc. (“Kobalt”), Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC (“Sony”), and Warner Records Inc. (“Warner”). 

    Plaintiff, a professional flutist and Latin music composer, has featured AD on several albums and made it available on digital platforms like Spotify and YouTube. DBS was created collaboratively over Zoom on May 29, 2020, by writers located in the Netherlands and Finland; Tiësto and others later completed the production, and Karol G added her vocals in the final stages.

    Each side offered a purported music expert to address whether DBS copies protectable elements of AD. Plaintiff relied on Richie Viera, a Latin music producer and former Vice President of Artists and Repertoire (“A&R”) at Capitol Records, who contended that the two songs share original melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic features. 

    Defendants requested that the Court exclude the Viera Report under Rule 702 and Daubert.

    Entertainment Industry Expert Witness

    Richard A. Viera-Cintrón is a former Vice President of A&R at Capitol Records, with decades of experience managing and producing Latin artists. Beyond that, he has taught music business and copyright at the Liceo de Arte y Tecnología in Puerto Rico, led seminars across Latin America, and appeared as a television commentator on music industry issues in Puerto Rico. 

    Viera is also a voting member of the Latin Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences.

    His expertise encompasses copyright infringement, moral rights, authorial rights, and trademark registration, making him a highly sought-after expert witness in legal disputes within the entertainment sector. As a musicologist, historian, and producer, he has worked with major labels and artists, curating historical compilations and reediting classic vinyl and CD recordings. 

    Want to know more about the challenges Richie Viera has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Qualifications

    While Plaintiff touts Viera’s decades in the music industry, the Court held that experience alone does not open the gate to expert testimony.

    To begin with, the list of cases that appears in Viera’s CV is long, but not illuminating. He cited 22 matters where he allegedly served as an expert, consultant, or musicologist — but nearly all involve the same cluster of parties in the Puerto Rico music industry, with one Plaintiff, Joel Bosh, recurring across five suits filed within three years. 

    Plaintiff highlighted Viera’s role as an author and educator, pointing to three published books and a forthcoming volume titled Stolen Music – The Fraud of Prior Art and Musical Building Blocks. But Plaintiff supplied no academic reviews, peer validation, or usage data to show these works carry weight in the forensic or legal musicology community.

    More generally, the nature of Viera’s professional background does not qualify him to engage in the comparative analysis his report purports to offer. While his curriculum vitae (“CV”) highlights substantial experience in the business side of the Latin music industry — including artist management, record production, television commentary, and music business education — none of these roles involves the core competencies of forensic musicology: transcribing compositions, analyzing protectable expression, or applying comparative methodologies to determine similarities.

    Moreover, Viera did not hold a degree in musicology, music theory, composition, or any closely related field. Nor did Viera’s deposition testimony bridge the gap. He declined to define standard musicological terms, such as “tonic” and “diatonic” despite using them in his analysis.

    Reliability

    Even if Viera’s experience qualified him to testify, that experience would not render his opinions reliable.

    Defendants explained in detail why Viera’s methodology failed every aspect of Daubert‘s reliability framework. His analysis — which relied largely on listening rather than transcription or notation — is neither testable nor replicable, lacks peer review or validation, and departs from accepted musicological methods by failing to conduct a prior art review or isolate protectable elements. 

    That concern is heightened by Viera’s admission that he did not prepare the transcriptions in his own report; Plaintiff supplied them — leaving the foundation of Viera’s analysis not just unverifiable, but secondhand.

    Plaintiff asserted that Viera’s “aural comparisons” supported by “visual representations” are grounded in industry experience and accessible to a jury. Yet Plaintiff identified no recognized methodology underlying this framework, nor did he explain how Viera’s conclusions can be tested or reviewed.

    Asked at his deposition about how he determines originality without evaluating prior art, he replied: “I use my instinct.I am able to detect when a word is copied, when there is any sort of copy.”

    He added, “I have a unique perception, something that perhaps very few people in the music industry have.” The Court held that it is not a methodology; it is, at best, Viera’s personal intuition offered up as professional expertise — untestable, unverifiable, and precisely the sort of expert say-so that Daubert excludes.

    Helpfulness

    The Viera Report did not engage in the type of analysis a jury could not undertake on its own. To the contrary, the Court held that Viera’s assertions rely on intuition and unexplained impressions — the kind of subjective judgments a jury is just as equipped to make as Viera; particularly in the absence of self-generated transcriptions, any review of prior art, or analytical tools to distinguish protectable expression from unprotectable elements. 

    Because Viera’s testimony is not the kind that Rule 702 envisions — evidence that informs, rather than supplants, the jury’s judgment — it is properly excluded.

    Held

    The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to exclude the Plaintiff’s proposed expert, Richie Viera.

    Key Takeaway:

    The unremarkable observation that an expert may be qualified by experience does not mean that experience, standing alone, is a sufficient foundation rendering reliable any conceivable opinion the expert may express.

    An expert who is relying solely or primarily on experience must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Lorente-Garcia V. Giraldo-Navarro
    Docket Number: 1:24cv23066
    Court Name: United States District Court, Washington Western
    Order Date: July 09, 2025