Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Music Industry Expert Witness

  • Law And Legal Expert’s Speculative Calculations of Future Earnings Excluded

    Law And Legal Expert’s Speculative Calculations of Future Earnings Excluded

    Drew Dixon alleged that the Defendant, Antonio Marquis “L.A.” Reid sexually harassed her and refused to allow her to succeed unless she acquiesced to his demand to be alone and in close proximity to her while she was employed as an A&R executive at Arista Records from 1996 to 2002.

    Dixon claimed that Antonio Reid sexually assaulted her twice in 2001.

    Dixon departed Arista in 2002, leaving the music industry to pursue a degree at the Harvard Business School.

    Defendant filed motions to preclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses, Michael Selverne, Mark Plotkin, and Dr. Chitra Raghavan, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403.

    Law And Legal Expert Witness

    Michael Selverne is an attorney who, for the past 39 years, has specialized in the field of executive compensation in the music industry. Over the course of his career, he has represented artists in their contract negotiations for recording and performance agreements, record executives in their negotiations of compensation packages with their employers, and music labels in their negotiations with executives.

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

    Music Industry Expert Witness

    Mark Plotkin holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from a joint program between Case Western University and The Cleveland Institute of Music and has over two decades of diverse experience in the music industry. Plotkin is a member of the Recording Academy, co-founded Decision Desk and Wifi Music School, and is the founder and CEO of Beast Music A.I., a media platform utilized by record labels such as RCA Records and Atlantic Records. Plotkin further serves as a Professor and the Area Head of Business and Technology at New York University’s Clive Davis Institute of Record Music.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Mark Plotkin’s expert testimony. 

    Psychology Expert Witness

    Dr. Chitra Raghavan is a licensed clinical psychologist with more than twenty years of experience. Raghavan received her doctorate in clinical and community psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and post-doctoral training at Yale University. Currently, she serves as a Professor of Psychology, Director of the Forensic Mental Health Counseling Program, and Coordinator of Victimology Studies in Forensic Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

    She has previously testified as a witness for the prosecution in other cases regarding the effects of traumatic abuse and coercive control and given over 150 conference presentations and published over forty articles in various publications on subjects related to domestic violence, sex trafficking, and trauma.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Michael Selverne

    In connection with this litigation, Selverne submitted an expert report setting forth his opinions regarding Plaintiff’s lost future compensation. In rendering his opinion, Selverne reviewed Dixon’s compensation package during her time at Arista.

    While the Plaintiff was hired in 1996 as a Senior Director for a two-year term, she was promoted to the position of Vice President when one of her “designated artist” albums sold 500,000 records. Selverne opined that the improvement in her compensation package and title in such a short time span indicated that Arista viewed Plaintiff as a “budding superstar.”

    Reviewing the compensation packages of contemporaries of Plaintiff who rose to the ranks of CEOs for major music labels, Selverne concluded that, if Dixon had “continued along the trajectory she was on when she departed Arista, it is highly likely that Dixon’s earnings would have reached seven or eight figures annually. It is equally likely that Dixon would have created a joint venture with a major record company and see her fortunes rise into the nine figures.”

    Analysis

    Selverne did not purport to calculate Plaintiff’s lost earnings based on her actual compensation at the time she left Arista. Indeed, he did not purport to calculate her lost earnings at all. He did not, for example, specify how long Plaintiff would have expected to work in the industry, with reference to verifiable statistics regarding longevity in the industry or even actuarial tables reflecting life expectancy. He did not calculate the value of lost benefits.

    Selverne’s lack of methodology in reaching his opinion on future earnings loss is reflected in his failure to quantify such damages. Selverne vaguely asserted that Plaintiff suffered damages in the range of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Selverne conjectures that Plaintiff not only would have continued to have a successful career in the music industry, but that she would have reached the pinnacle of the profession to become the CEO of a major record label or otherwise enter into a lucrative joint venture agreement. The Court held that these hypothetical promotions, bonuses, and business deals lack sufficient evidentiary foundation, and thus cannot form the basis of an expert opinion.

    Mark Plotkin

    Plaintiff retained Marc Plotkin to provide an expert opinion regarding the hypothetical earnings Plaintiff would have received from her A&R commission structure had she successfully signed Kanye West and John Legend.

    Plotkin first looked to Plaintiff’s employment agreement for the relevant formula and then researched West and Legend’s first contracts with Def Jam and Columbia Records, respectively, as well as their sales data year by year to ultimately determine how many records and singles were sold across various mediums and the price per unit.

    Analysis

    Defendant objected to Plotkin’s reliance on historical data regarding record sales as the basis for his opinion. Defendant contended that it rests on the faulty assumption that West and Legend would have released the same albums while at Arista and thus earned the same revenues. 

    The Court held that these are the types of assumptions that go to the weight of the evidence, not admissibility. The use of historical data may not provide exactitude, but allows for calculations to a reasonable certainty, which is all the law requires.

    Defendant also argued that the entirety of Plotkin’s opinion is speculative, in that it is unknown whether these artists would have signed to Arista if offered the chance or that they would have been deemed Dixon’s designated artists if they had done so. Defendant misapprehended the nature of Plotkin’s inquiry. Plotkin is not purporting to offer an opinion as to whether West or Legend would have signed to Arista, or if they had whether Dixon would have been responsible for signing them. Rather, his opinions are limited to a calculation of what commissions Plaintiff would have been entitled to under the terms of employment contract in the hypothetical world where she was responsible for signing the artists while at Arista.

    Dr. Chitra Raghavan

    Raghavan opined that she “found Dixon’s reported history to be believable” because she reported a decrease in recent symptoms rather than an increase, a pattern that would be typical of malingerers; Plaintiff’s emotional and physical responses were consistent with the experiences she relayed; she was able to clearly explain the abuse fact pattern and her narratives over multiple interviews; and three objective tests indicated that she responded genuinely about her mental health.

    She further opined that Defendant “used numerous tactics of coercive control to maintain his abusive power” over Plaintiff, including physical violence, manipulation, sexual abuse, retaliation, and microregulation. Raghavan opined that the “sexual assaults and the atmosphere of coercion and hostility” that Plaintiff suffered triggered a severe episode of complex PTSD.

    Analysis

    The Court held that Raghavan’s anticipated testimony is replete with improper opinions regarding witness credibility and bolstering. Such bolstering testimony regarding the truth of the underlying factual allegations in the case is not the proper province of an expert witness.

    The Court held that Raghavan is precluded, pursuant to Rules 702 and 403, from offering testimony at trial regarding Plaintiff’s credibility, including an opinion that Plaintiff was the subject of a sexual assault by Defendant or that Defendant exercised coercive control over Plaintiff. She is also precluded from opining on the causation of Plaintiff’s conditions. Raghavan can testify, however, as to coercive control generally, as background; her diagnoses of Plaintiff’s mental health conditions and the bases for her diagnoses; and that Plaintiff’s condition is “consistent with” that of individuals who have been sexually assaulted.

    Held

    • The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to preclude the testimony of Michael Selverne.
    • The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to preclude the testimony of Mark Plotkin.
    • The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to preclude the testimony of Dr. Chitra Raghavan.

    Key Takeaway:

    Where lost future earnings are at issue, an expert’s testimony should be excluded as speculative if it is based on unrealistic assumptions regarding the Plaintiff’s future employment prospects.

    Selverne’s opinion is not only of little assistance to a jury, but also rests on inherently speculative assumptions. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Dixon V. Reid
    Docket Number: 1:23cv9878
    Court Name: United States District Court, New York Southern
    Order Date: August 21, 2025
  • Music Industry Expert Witness’ Testimony on Proximity of Products Admitted

    Music Industry Expert Witness’ Testimony on Proximity of Products Admitted

    The parties in this case are estranged corporate siblings.  Plaintiff Ultra Records LLC is a music recording company. Defendant Ultra International Music Publishing LLC is a music publishing company. (The Court refers to Ultra Records as “Records” and Ultra International Music Publishing as “Publishing.”) Records has sued Publishing for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, breach of contract, and other claims related to Publishing’s use of the “Ultra” name.  For its part, Publishing sought a declaration confirming its right to use that name.

    Records sought to exclude the testimony of Bijan Amirkhani and portions of the testimony of Gary Casson. Publishing sought to exclude the testimony of Jeff Rougvie. 

    Music Industry Expert Witnesses

    Bijan Amirkhani began his career over fifteen years ago, initially as a hobby, and then transitioning to a professional producer around 2017, when he received a major placement for an album he helped produce. In the same year, an album he co-produced earned 9X Platinum status and garnered over 1.4 billion streams on Spotify. In addition to these successes, Amirkhani has worked with many recording artists, including such famous ones as Lil Wayne, Kanye, YG, and Sabrina Claudio. Amirkhani also participates in writing camps around the world and interacts with hundreds of recording artists, producers, and songwriters to develop music for various products.

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

    Gary Casson is an attorney and executive who has worked in the music industry for more than 45 years. He has been retained by a number of organizations and major music companies including the RIAA, Sony Music and the Warner Music Group.

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

    Jeff Rougvie is a senior entertainment industry executive with extensive experience in the evaluation, acquisition, monetization and reformatting of IP. He has intimate knowledge of sales, marketing, distribution, and intellectual property law within entertainment and licensing industries.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Bijan Amirkhani 

    Bijan Amirkhani’s report discusses the differences between record companies and music publishers, the reasons why songwriters sign with publishing companies, the factors songwriters and producers consider when choosing a publishing company, and the likelihood of confusion “if a record company and publishing company have similar names, but are owned by unrelated entities.”

    Records objected that Amirkhani does not have the right sort of personal experience to make him an expert on music industry practices. The Court held that Records doesn’t—and can’t—deny that Amirkhani has practical experience in the general field at issue here. Beyond that, whether he has precisely the sort of experience Records thinks he should “go[es] to the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony.” Amirkhani used this practical experience as the factual basis for his testimony. His testimony is based on the experience he gained in working with “hundreds of songwriters and publishers” and his own personal experience as a songwriter and producer.

    However, the Court held that Amirkhani’s opinion that no one would be confused by Records and Publishing having the same name is plainly out of bounds. As Records points out, Amirkhani’s report failed to provide any reliable basis for his assurances about what’s going on inside the heads of other people.

    If Amirkhani were testifying as a fact witness based on his personal knowledge, he certainly could have offered testimony about his own confusion (or lack thereof). But it is precisely to smuggle in otherwise inadmissible market-wide testimony—with no basis in evidence from the marketplace—that he’s been presented as an expert. The Court held that Rule 702 doesn’t allow that.

    Gary Casson

    Casson’s report discusses the functions of a music publisher, the functions of a record label, and differences between the two. Casson also discusses the history of the Ultra name.

    Records acknowledges that much of Casson’s testimony is admissible. It objects to just two paragraphs in his report. In each of these paragraphs, Casson stated point-blank that there is no likelihood of confusion for a particular group of music industry customers.

    Publishing said that expert testimony about how consumers decide what to purchase doesn’t require survey evidence, so long as the expert doesn’t speak “about confusion when consumers are faced with the marks.” According to Publishing, Casson will only testify that the marks aren’t part of the buying process, not about confusion between the marks.

    If that is the limit of Casson’s testimony, then there is no issue. However, the Court held that Casson’s report states directly that there is no likelihood of confusion among songwriters, DSPs, and synch licensees. That’s an opinion about confusion unmoored from a valid survey or other reliable basis in fact. As Records seems to recognize with its surgical objections, the problem with Casson’s testimony is that he ventures beyond a description of consumers’ buying practices to opine on confusion, which he has no basis to do.

    Jeff Rougvie

    Rougvie discusses the degree of competitive proximity between record companies and publishing companies.

    Qualifications

    Publishing claims that Rougvie is unqualified, that his testimony is unreliable, and that his opinions are irrelevant to the issues to be tried.

    On Rougvie’s qualifications, Publishing’s argument isn’t that Rougvie lacks experience. Publishing instead claimed that Rougvie lacks both recent and the correct type of experience in the music industry. To Publishing’s credit, Rougvie does characterize the music industry as subject to major “technological disruption.” However, just because the industry is consistently changing doesn’t mean, in Court’s opinion, that Rougvie’s four decades in the industry amount to nothing.

    Publishing pointed to Rougvie’s lack of knowledge about several major organizations for songwriters as evidence of his ignorance about songwriters specifically. But Rougvie’s decades of experience in the music industry qualifies him to testify; the Court held that Publishing can air its specific gripes concerning the limits of that experience at trial.

    Reliability

    Second, Publishing objected that Rougvie’s opinions lack a sufficient factual foundation and are misleading. Publishing’s main complaint is that Rougvie failed to investigate the facts underlying his opinions thoroughly. Again, these criticisms are better directed at cross-examination, not exclusion. On the Court’s read of Rougvie’s report, it contains conclusions about record companies and publishing companies based on Rougvie’s personal experience and explanations of why that experience is relevant to those conclusions.

    Publishing also points to what it views as unsubstantiated implications of statements in Rougvie’s report, including about the business choices of Taylor Swift and the reason why half of Ultra Records was sold in 2012. But the testimony itself satisfies the Rule 702 bar. Just as Publishing was able to explain those unsupported inferences in its briefing, the Court held that it can expose any weaknesses in Rougvie’s testimony during cross-examination. 

    Relevance

    The Court held that Rougvie’s report discusses the similarities between the services offered by record companies and publishing companies—a key issue in this case. Proximity of products is one of the factors courts use to determine the likelihood of confusion in a trademark-infringement action.

    Publishing doesn’t really engage with this response. Instead, it reasserts that Rougvie’s testimony is based on speculation and is misleading. However, the Court rejects these arguments as grounds for exclusion.

    Held

    • The Court granted in part and denied in part Records’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Bijan Amirkhani and portions of the expert testimony of Gary Casson.
    • The Court denied Publishing’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of Jeff Rougvie.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court excluded the likelihood of confusion opinions offered by Amirkhani  and Casson because they lacked a reliable basis in fact. Rougvie’s report, however, sheds light on the degree of competitive proximity between record companies and publishing companies. Discussing the similarities between the services offered by record companies and publishing companies is relevant because proximity of products is one of the factors courts use to determine the likelihood of confusion in a trademark-infringement action. Though Publishing claims Rougvie doesn’t have experience in the relevant niche within the music industry, the Court held that Rougvie’s decades of experience in the music industry qualifies him to testify.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Ultra Records, Llc V. Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC
    Docket Number: 1:22cv9667
    Court: United States District Court, New York Southern
    Order Date; November 4, 2024