Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Security Expert Witness

  • Security Expert’s Legal Conclusions Excluded

    Security Expert’s Legal Conclusions Excluded

    This case arises from the shooting death of John Fuller, (the “Decedent”), and wounding of DaJohn Foster at the Winbranch Apartment Complex (the “Property”). Plaintiffs assert a premises liability claim based on Defendants’ alleged failure to take adequate steps to protect them from violent crimes committed by third parties not resident at the Property. Defendant Winbranch Complex, LLC owned the Property and Defendant My Management, LLC served as the third-party fee manager for the Property.

    Plaintiffs retained Jennifer C. St. Clair, an economist, to provide expert testimony on the pecuniary and/or monetary value of the Decedent’s life, and Thomas R. Stutler, a “security specialist.”

    Defendants, Winbranch Complex, LLC, and My Management, LLC d/b/a Apartments Near Me (together, the “Defendants”) filed a Daubert motion to exclude Plaintiff’s experts.

    Security Expert Witness

    Thomas R. Stutler, CPP, JD served as leader for security at two corporations, spanning approximately ten years.

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

    Economics Expert Witness

    Jennifer Coats St. Clair, MA is a self-employed Labor Economist with over nine years of experience calculating litigation damages, specifically focusing on the economic, financial, and business issues arising in legal disputes. She earned a Master of Arts in Economics from the University of Memphis in 2016, where she also achieved All But Dissertation (“ABD”) status after passing doctoral comprehensive examinations.

    She has taught Economics at the University of Memphis and Christian Brothers University. Since 2017, St. Clair has served as a consulting economist or econometrician on over 130 federal and state cases, with a substantial portion of her practice involving the calculation of economic losses in personal tort claims.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    I. Thomas R. Stutler, CPP, JD

    After summarizing a version of the events underlying the lawsuit, Stutler’s report announces various legal conclusions, including that “the victims were legally on the property” and that “as tenants and guests on the property the Defendants owed a duty to the victims to provide a reasonable safe environment.”

    He then summarized crime statistics for the surrounding area—apparently in support of his assertion of foreseeability—before listing various failures that, if they occurred, “would be a major security failure.”

    The Court held that Stutler’s report did not satisfy Rule 702 and therefore must be excluded.

    Finally, Stutler offered a few opinions that could—depending on the analysis—be the stuff of expert testimony, including: an assessment of Property’s security posture, ten bullet-pointed recommendations for improving that posture; something that looks vaguely like an opinion on breach (although couched in terms of inactions that would be a “serious security failure”); and opinions on causation. The problem is that these opinions are wholly unexplained—they are assertions more than opinions, with no indication that they are the result of a reliable methodology reliably applied.

    II. Jennifer C. St. Clair, MA

    Plaintiffs retained St. Clair to calculate the present value of the economic losses arising from the shooting death of Decedent.

    St. Clair first assumed that Fuller worked for the entire duration of his life. She calculated this to be 18.17 years based on the Markov Process Model of Labor Force Activity. In that scenario, St. Clair found that the value loss would be $830,828. In the second scenario, she assumed that Fuller worked until the Social Security retirement age of 67. The value loss would be $896,139 in that case.

    It should be noted that Defendants did not point to any unique facts or specific medical history that might render any opinion concerning Decedent’s future earnings or household services wildly misleading if not accounted for. 

    Next, Defendants argued that St. Clair failed to accurately calculate income lost because she relied on national average wages as opposed to Fuller’s actual income. Defendants also noted that they have never received income information from Plaintiffs. St. Clair relied on the American Community Survey to determine income specifically for barbers. Defendants also argued that St. Clair committed the same errors in her household services calculation, pointing to her failure to consider Fuller’s actual contributions to the household. St. Clair relied on expectancy data from The Dollar Value of a Day: 2020 Dollar Valuation.

    The Court held that historical earnings and household services are “relevant” to the earnings calculation but not dispositive. St. Clair’s determination that Fuller would have earned more over the course of his working life than the earning capacity that may have been suggested by his salary “is not unreasonable as a matter of law.”

    St. Clair’s analysis “involved a degree of speculation, as does all analysis of future damages, but not unrealistic speculation.”

    Held

    The Court denied Defendants’ motion regarding Jennifer St. Clair’s expert report and granted Defendants’ motion regarding Thomas Stutler’s report.

    Key Takeaway

    Stutler purports to rest his opinion on his “knowledge, training, skill, and expertise,” but even experts who base their opinion on honed expertise must explain how they applied their methodology in the case at hand to arrive at their opinions. Experts must show their work, and if they do not, their opinions must be excluded. The Court’s gatekeeping function under Daubert requires more than simply taking the expert’s word for their testimony.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Foster V. Winbranch Complex LLC
    Docket Number: 2:24cv2433
    Court Name: United States District Court, Tennessee Western
    Order Date: May 15, 2026
  • Security Expert Allowed to Opine on Venue Management

    Security Expert Allowed to Opine on Venue Management

    On July 30, 2022, Plaintiff Gary Stanhope attended a Luke Bryan concert at the Xfinity Theatre in Hartford, Connecticut with friends. The group stood on the asphalt walkway in the general admission area, between Sections 500 and 600, behind the railing separating the lawn from the reserved seating. At approximately 10:00 P.M., Stanhope was assaulted and sustained serious injuries.

    Russell Kolins, Stanhope’s liability expert, opined that Live Nation failed to adequately deploy security, failed to conduct a written risk assessment, and failed to implement adequate security policies and procedures.

    Defendant Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. d/b/a Xfinity Theatre filed this motion to preclude the testimony of Kolins due to his alleged lack of qualification as an expert for (1) large concert venue security; (2) the alleged unreliability of Kolins’ analyses; (3) and the claimed lack of “fit” of his opinions to the facts of the case.

    Security Expert Witness

    Russell David Kolins is a practicing Licensed Private Detective and Security Consultant/Practitioner. He celebrated his 55th year in private practice in August 2024. He is a Board-Certified Criminal Defense Investigator and holds a specialized Bachelor of Science Degree in Security Management. Kolins served three terms as the elected Chairman of the ASIS International Hospitality, Entertainment and Tourism Council.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Kolins is Qualified

    Kolins possesses years of experience as a security consultant, holds a certification and bachelor’s degree in Security Management, and served as leadership at the ASIS International Hospitality, Entertainment, and Tourism Security Council. He has been admitted to testify as a security expert in other courts and has spoken on premises security and crowd management.

    Live Nation argued that Kolins has never managed a 22,000-person venue and thus lacked the necessary qualifications. However, the Court held that Kolins does not need to match the exact subtype of security venue.

    B. Kolins’ Methodology is Reliable

    Live Nation argued that Kolins’ expert testimony is not based on an identifiable methodology. It asserted that Kolins’ report and depositions reveal no identifiable methodology for his conclusions and that he did not review any history of prior incidents, did not review crime data, did not read witness depositions, or conduct a site visit.

    The Court found that Kolins explained how his analysis, methodology, and sources met the standard required for him to testify.

    Kolins details his methodology and application to the facts of this case. He utilized authorities such as the American National Standards Institute on Crowd Management and the International Association of Venue Managers. Kolins then details how he took the various factors from the methodology and applied them to the facts at hand. He discussed the foreseeability of crowd density and congestion, as well as alcohol sales. Kolins analyzed the deployment of security personnel and cameras. Kolins also discussed the security planning and protective measures utilized by Live Nation. Finally, he addressed the response of security personnel to crises and incidents. In each section, Kolins references the standards of the security community and analyzes how Live Nation met or did not meet those standards.

    C. Kolins’ Opinions Fit the Facts of the Case

    Live Nation argued that Kolins’ testimony did not fit the facts of the case. Live Nation asserted that the literature cited is dated, and the opinions are boilerplate or general.

    Kolins offered testimony that is important to the issues of negligence. First, he provided an overview of the responsibility of venue managers such as Live Nation and the duties of the facility supervisors regarding security policy and procedures. Additionally, Kolins offered his expert testimony as to the crowd management plans for concert events speaking on the seating arrangement, crowd flow, density of concertgoers, and prior incidents at the concert. Finally, Kolins offered his opinions as to why the security was inadequate including how no security appears to have witnessed the assault itself, the lack of video camera surveillance, and the venue’s responsibility to identify and correct those issues. The Court found that Kolins provided testimony that fits the facts of the case. He described the responsibilities, standards, and alleged failings of Live Nation in connection with the assault on Stanhope.

    Held

    The court denied Live Nation’s motion to preclude the testimony of Russell Kolins.

    Key Takeaway

    An expert’s credentials do not need to be unassailable in order for their testimony to be admissible. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 stated that “if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Stanhope V. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.
    Docket Number: 3:24cv1342
    Court Name: United States District Court, Connecticut
    Order Date: May 11, 2026
  • Security Expert Witness’ Opinions Admitted because of its Strong Factual Basis

    Security Expert Witness’ Opinions Admitted because of its Strong Factual Basis

    A district judge in New Jersey admitted the testimony of the security expert despite the opposing party contending that it was based on his own personal, subjective beliefs.

    The present case arises out of Plaintiff, Ebony Thames’ fall from the roof of Bally’s Wild West Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. On April 6, 2019, Plaintiff, a patron at Defendants’ property, was served alcohol by Bally’s employees. Later that evening, Plaintiff was in a hotel room at the property when a security officer responded to a noise complaint. Upon arrival, the security officer encountered Plaintiff, who ran off down the hallway towards the fire tower. Plaintiff exited an unalarmed door onto the roof of the building then diverted her path from the walkway along the fire escape route where she fell from the third-floor roof of the adjoining building while attempting to climb down the facade. In order to reach the Bally’s ledge where Plaintiff started to climb down the building, Plaintiff needed to traverse barriers that included HVAC piping, two five foot walls, and one nine-foot wall.

    After Plaintiff fell several stories to the boardwalk below, she filed this lawsuit on account of severe and permanent injuries sustained as a result.

    Defendants filed a motion to bar the opinion and findings of Plaintiff’s security expert witness, Russell Kolins under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703.

    Security Expert Witness

    Russell Kolins leads the Kolins Security Group, a division of Russell Kolins Associates. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Security Management and specialized in the defense industry during the first two decades of his practice, undergoing extensive training and education in the fields of Risk Management, Risk Assessments, Premises Liability, Security Inspections, and Civil Liability.

    Russell Kolins’ expertise is well-earned. He is a certified trainer in the two nationally accepted responsible alcohol management programs. Russell has been a consultant to some of the largest Nightclub entertainment venues as well as country clubs, resorts and hotel and motel businesses. His skills extend to Facility Physical Security Design and he is a CPTED Practitioner.

    Get in-depth insights into Russell Collin’s expert witness experience by requesting his Expert Witness Profile today

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendants argued that Russell Kolins’ conclusions constituted net opinion based on his subjective opinions regarding the facts of the case. Also, they added that Kolins’ opinions improperly extrapolated from the facts of a prior matter involving the same Defendant, Bally’s, and that his opinions consisted of legal conclusions. In his report, Kolins asserted that Bally’s was obligated to protect people on their property and failed to place a reasonable barrier to detect, delay and ultimately respond to people who were in this unsafe area.

    Moreover, Defendants argued that Kolins applied an unreasonably high standard created using his own personal, subjective beliefs to reach his conclusions and created a unreasonable duty of care.

    According to the Court, Kolins’ response to a question posing a hypothetical scenario was distinct from his opinion that Defendants had an obligation to protect Plaintiff under the specific circumstances of this case. As Kolins set forth in his Report, the materials he relied on in forming this opinion included information that “Defendant had a history of people being up on and falling off the roof” and “people being on the roof was so prevalent that security was responsible for patrolling this area for customers.” Together, the Court held that this information reasonably explained the factual basis underlying Kolins’ opinion.

    The Defendant had previously filed a motion to preclude Plaintiff’s expert report of Russell Kolins arguing that it was nearly two (2) months late in violation of this Court’s Orders and all applicable rules in New Jersey. The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to preclude the untimely expert report submitted by Kolins.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude to the opinion of security expert witness, Russell Kolins.

    Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment combined with this motion to bar Kolins’ testimony. Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to retain an expert in order establish the alleged negligence responsible for the Plaintiffs’ injuries. Court ruled that the expert testimony of Kolins may be admitted to establish general principles for negligence and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on that issue.

    Key Takeaway:

    According to Defendants, Kolins drew his conclusions applying an unreasonably high standard created using his own personal, subjective beliefs but the Court found out that Kolins’ conclusions were actually supported by reliable information regarding the Defendants’ security practices and previous incidents.

    Case Details:

      Case Caption: Thames v. Bally’s Park Place, LLC
     Docket Number: 1:21cv1876
     Court: United States District Court, New Jersey
     Order Date: June 17, 2024