Category: Financial Analysis Expert Witness

This case arises from a contract dispute between Plaintiff Alorica Inc. and Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. concerning customer service outsourcing for AT&T.

Defendant asserted that Plaintiff’s conduct caused damages, including employee time lost to negotiating an amendment, addressing issues from the alleged breach, and repairing Defendant’s AT&T relationship.

To quantify these damages, Defendant retained David N. Fuller, a Chartered Financial Analyst, Accredited Senior Appraiser, and Certified Fraud Examiner. Fuller relied on payroll records for three employees and a declaration from Defendant’s corporate representative identifying the number of workdays those employees devoted to the relevant tasks. Using this information, Fuller calculated daily salary rates and multiplied them by the days reported, resulting in a damages figure of $33,900.77.

Plaintiff filed a motion to strike and exclude Fuller’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Plaintiff contended that Fuller merely performed basic arithmetic without applying specialized expertise, arguing that his testimony would improperly lend undue credibility to Defendant’s damages claim.

Financial Analysis Expert Witness

David Neil Fuller is a Chartered Financial Analyst, Accredited Senior Appraiser, and Certified Fraud Examiner. He is currently employed as the President of Value Incorporated (“VALUE”), a financial valuation consulting firm located in Irving, Texas.

His educational background includes a Master of Business Administration degree from Southern Methodist University with a concentration in Finance, and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Austin College with a concentration in Economics.

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

Discussion by the Court

I. Admissibility Under Rule 702

A. Fuller is qualified

First, there is no dispute that Fuller is a Chartered Financial Analyst, Accredited Senior Appraiser, and Certified Fraud Examiner. Plaintiff did not challenge his credentials directly but argues that he failed to apply them in forming his opinions.

Therefore, the Court held that Fuller’s background and certifications establish that he is qualified under Rule 702 to provide opinions on damages and financial analysis.

B. Fuller’s specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact

Plaintiff contended that his opinion is unhelpful because it is limited to “elementary-level arithmetic” requiring no expertise. Defendant responded that even simple calculations can be admissible when framed by specialized knowledge, and that Fuller’s testimony will aid the jury by organizing payroll data and time allocations into a coherent damages model. The Court agreed that Fuller’s testimony may assist the trier of fact by explaining how employee salaries and reported workdays translate into a damages figure. That the math is simple does not, by itself, render the opinion inadmissible.

C. Fuller’s testimony is based on sufficient facts and data

Fuller relied on payroll records and the Franklin Declaration to determine employee compensation and time spent on tasks. Alorica argued that Fuller failed to verify these sources and simply accepted the numbers provided.

The Court found that Fuller’s reliance on payroll records and a sworn declaration provided a sufficient factual basis to satisfy Rule 702(b). The Court agreed that any challenge to those inputs’ reliability spoke to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility.

D. Fuller’s testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods reliably applied to the facts of the case

Fuller divided bi-weekly salaries by ten to calculate daily rates and multiplied those rates by the number of workdays listed in the Franklin Declaration, yielding a damages estimate of $33,900. Plaintiff characterized this as parroting numbers without methodology, while Tech Mahindra framed it as applying financial expertise to convert compensation data into damages.

The Court concluded that Fuller’s methodology is straightforward but reliable for the limited purpose it serves. 

II. Admissibility Under Rule 403

Plaintiff argued that permitting Fuller to testify would unfairly prejudice the jury because cloaking simple arithmetic in the authority of expert testimony would lend improper weight to Defendant’s damages claim. Defendant responded that any weaknesses in Fuller’s analysis can be explored on cross-examination and that the testimony poses no risk of confusion or undue prejudice.

The Court agreed with Defendant. Fuller’s testimony, though based on simple calculations, is probative of Defendant’s damages theory. Concerns about the simplicity of the arithmetic are properly addressed through cross-examination and competing evidence, not exclusion under Rule 403.

Held

The Court denied Plaintiff Alorica Inc.’s motion to strike and exclude Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc.’s expert David Fuller.

Key Takeaway:

The Court found that Fuller applied his methodology consistently and transparently to the facts. While his calculations are not complex, they are replicable and tied to the data sources identified. To the extent Plaintiff believed Fuller should have done more independent verification, those criticisms are better addressed through cross-examination than exclusion.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Alorica Inc. V. Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc.
Docket Number:	4:24cv30
Court Name:	United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division
Order Date:	September 05, 2025