Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Bid

  • Economics Expert’s Testimony on Lost Productivity Excluded 

    Economics Expert’s Testimony on Lost Productivity Excluded 

    This case involves alleged damage to a plasma cutter that was to be used for a welding business. Plaintiff Giger Welding and Fabrication, LLC (“Giger”), purchased a plasma cutter from an auction in Texas to assist with its welding business in Missouri. To get the plasma cutter to Missouri, Giger contracted with Defendants DFW Movers & Erectors, Inc. (“DFW”), and AFC Transportation, Inc. (“AFC”), to load and transport it on a semitruck. The plasma cutter was allegedly damaged during shipment.

    Giger then sued DFW to recoup damages for the repair of the plasma cutter as well as lost profits.

    Giger’s expert, Dr. William Rogers, has submitted a report on economic damages. DFW sought to exclude Giger’s testimony that potential customers did not accept his bids because of the lead time and cost required due to Giger not having use of the damaged plasma cutter.

    Economics Expert Witness

    Dr. William Harris Rogers is an economist and owner of John Ward Economics focused on providing economic testimony in the Kansas City and St. Louis metro areas and beyond. He is a former associate professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Saint Louis (2004-2016) with a Ph.D. in Economics. Rogers has worked as a forensic economic consultant and expert witness estimating financial losses for litigation purposes since 2015.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Rogers is an economist whose expertise is limited, in this litigation, to calculations of damages based on information provided to him by Giger. To begin with, the Court did not allow Giger to introduce otherwise inadmissible hearsay through its expert, when that expert’s expertise is unrelated to the welding trade or the reliability of the alleged statements of potential customers.

    Also, Rogers may not opine, as he does in his report, that he “believes it is appropriate to identify Giger’s losses through the lens of lost productivity while awaiting the plasma cutter’s replacement or repair.” This is, after all, an ultimate question of fact for the jury. Once Rogers explains how lost productivity and profits are calculated, the jury will be in a position to assess the appropriateness of lost profits as a measure of damages and apply Roger’s testimony to Giger’s claims.

    Giger testified under oath that he gave bids to multiple potential customers in response to requests from those customers. While Giger and its expert witness shall not testify about the reasons purportedly given by potential customers for their denials of Plaintiff’s work bids, the Court held that Giger and its expert may offer evidence of the bids themselves.

    Held

    The Court limited the testimony of Giger’s expert, Dr. William Rogers.

    Key Takeaway

    Expert witnesses are not allowed to to give an opinion on an ultimate question of fact. The experts are only permitted to explain the criteria by which they would form such an opinion.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Giger Welding And Fabrication, LLC V. Tranzact Technologies, Inc.
    Docket Number: 4:21cv741
    Court Name: United States District Court, Missouri Western
    Order Date: February 10, 2026
  • Accounting Expert’s Opinions on the Potential Damages Admitted

    Accounting Expert’s Opinions on the Potential Damages Admitted

    Go Global Retail sued Defendants Dream On Me Industries and Dream On Me, Inc. (collectively DOM) for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

    Go Global is a “private equity and brand investment firm” that often buys up “distressed retail assets.” It uses its in-house research and industry know-how to try to spot profitable opportunities. When it learned that Bed Bath & Beyond planned to auction off assets of its subsidiary, buybuy BABY (BBBY), Go Global started to structure a bid.

    During that process, Go Global—together with DOM and at least thirty potential investors—were granted access to a data room that contained hundreds of documents with BBBY’s financial information, so that they could conduct due diligence. 

    Using that data, Go Global developed three alleged trade secrets: its Financial Model, its Bidding Strategy, and its Technology Plan. 

    But the alleged trade secrets alone weren’t enough to win a bid: Go Global needed financing. It eventually turned to DOM. After the parties talked about bidding on BBBY’s assets jointly, Go Global sent DOM a nondisclosure agreement (NDA), and DOM’s Chief Marketing Officer, Avish Dahiya, signed it.

    Like Go Global, DOM already had access to BBBY’s historical financial data. But it didn’t have access to Go Global’s Financial Model. So after DOM signed the NDA, it downloaded the contents of Go Global’s data room, which included the Financial Model.

    DOM filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Go Global’s expert Alan Schachter.

    Accounting Expert Witness

    Alan A. Schachter, CPA, ABV, CFF, CVA, CFE has been a senior executive and partner in various consulting and accounting firms for 40 years. His experience includes assisting government agencies, private companies and their counsel with complex valuation, economic damages, and compliance issues. During his professional career, he has been very active in several types of matters that relate to intellectual property, healthcare, financial services, franchising, white-collar criminal defense, personal injury, matrimonial, wrongful termination, partnership disputes, and other civil & criminal matters.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    DOM asserted that because Schachter’s damages model relied on terms of a planned joint bid that are “entirely speculative,” it flunked the Daubert test. 

    But the factual basis is the NDA itself: If DOM had complied with the Non-Circumvention Obligation, then DOM would have had to bid for BBBY with Go Global. Given that DOM won the bid on its own, it isn’t “entirely speculative” that Go Global would have won a bid as DOM’s partner. And any argument that DOM would have chosen not to bid at all rather than bid with Go Global is foreclosed by DOM’s admission that it was “always going to submit a bid for the [BBBY] assets, with or without Go Global.” 

    Next, DOM challenged Go Global’s lost profits theory on the grounds that Schachter’s calculation “ignores the actual financial performance of BBBY since it was acquired by DOM which shows net losses of approximately $17.4 million.” 

    But to the extent DOM argues that Schachter relies on “unrealistic assurances provided by Go Global” in preparing his model, that boils down to whether Go Global is correct that it would have turned BBBY profitable had it bought the company with DOM—a question that is firmly within the province of the jury.

    The Court permitted Schachter to testify at trial about the opinions in his report.

    Held

    The Court denied DOM’s motion to exclude the testimony of Go Global’s damages expert, Alan Schachter.

    Key Takeaway:

    Alan Schachter calculated damages in the form of actual losses, unjust enrichment, and reasonable royalty for the Damages Period. Schachter’s testimony was grounded on sufficient facts and data in accordance with the Daubert standard.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Go Global Retail, LLC V. Dream On Me, Inc.
    Docket Number: 1:23cv7987
    Court Name: United States District Court, New York Southern
    Order Date: September 26, 2025