Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Cannabis

  • Plant Pathology Expert Allowed to Opine on HLVd Infection

    Plant Pathology Expert Allowed to Opine on HLVd Infection

    Plaintiff is a Delaware limited liability business suing multiple individuals and related trusts for securities fraud arising out of a transaction in which Defendants allegedly induced Plaintiff to purchase over $25 million of Devi Holdings stock through fraudulent misrepresentations about Devi’s financial condition and unpaid tax liabilities. Devi Holdings was a business engaged in engaged in cannabis cultivation and production.

    Plaintiff offered the testimony of experts Dr. Zamir K. Punja and Alexander Cooley. Defendants filed a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Punja and a joint motion to exclude the testimony of Cooley while Plaintiff filed an omnibus motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ proffered experts, Beau Whitney and Barbara Webb.

    Plant Pathology Expert Witness

    Dr. Zamir K. Punja has been engaged in the study of plant pathology for over 40 years. He received his Bachelor of Science (Hons.) in Plant Science, Agriculture from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, and earned a Master of Science (MSc) and a Doctorate (Ph.D.) in Plant Pathology from the University of California, Davis, California, USA.

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

    Cannabis Expert Witness

    Alexander Cooley has nearly twenty years of experience in the cannabis and hemp industries, including senior operational roles in cannabis companies, consulting work, and policy and regulatory engagement.

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

    Economics Expert Witness

    Beau Whitney is an economist and business operations and governmental affairs specialist with over 20 years of experience. In 2014, he founded Whitney Economics, a cannabis and hemp business consulting, data, and economic research firm based in Portland, Oregon.

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

    Accounting Expert Witness

    Barbara Webb has a MAcc in Accounting from the University of Michigan. She is a Certified Public Accountant who specializes in providing complex tax advisory services and audit support for cannabis businesses.

    Gain a comprehensive understanding of Barbara Webb’s qualifications with her Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Defendants’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Zamir Punja

    Through Punja’s testimony, Plaintiff sought to prove that Devi’s cannabis was already widely infected with HLVd by early 2021, Defendants knew or should have known it, and they fraudulently concealed this when inducing Plaintiff to buy $25 million in shares. Discovery revealed that by early 2022 Devi’s Arizona facility was experiencing a widespread outbreak of HLVd, a pathogen known to cause significant reductions in cannabis yield and quality. Punja opined that the level of HLVd infection documented in 2022 could only have resulted from repeated propagation cycles over multiple years, and therefore the viroid was present—and detectable—by early 2021, during the period in which Defendants were soliciting Plaintiff’s investment.

    Defendants sought exclusion of Punja’s testimony on the grounds that it is unreliable, speculative, and irrelevant to the claims pled.

    Defendants argued that Punja’s opinions are speculative because he lacked direct HLVd test results from 2021. But the absence of such data is itself a product of Devi’s failure to test. Therefore, Punja’s opinion is consistent with accepted scientific practice.

    Defendants argued that HLVd is irrelevant because the Amended Complaint does not expressly reference it, but the Complaint alleged that Defendants concealed that “the vast majority” of Devi’s cannabis was unsellable—a fact directly tied to Devi’s financial condition and the value of the shares Plaintiff purchased.

    As a result, Punja’s testimony is therefore relevant to whether Defendants misrepresented or concealed material facts about Devi’s operational viability and financial health.

    B. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony by Alex Cooley

    Defendants argued that Cooley is unqualified because he is not a CPA and lacked formal accounting or tax credentials. But Plaintiff did not offer Cooley as a general accounting or tax expert. Rather, he is offered to explain cannabis-industry-specific accounting issues.

    Defendants contended that Cooley used no methodology and that his opinions were speculative because he did not calculate Devi’s exact tax liability. However, Cooley did not purport to calculate Devi’s tax liability. Rather, Cooley’s opinions addressed whether Devi’s accounting practices—such as routing revenue through management companies, zeroing out subsidiary income, and classifying expenses as cost of goods sold—were inconsistent with representations that all taxes were paid, and no accounting issues existed.

    Lastly, to the extent the Defendants argued that Cooley invaded the province of the factfinder, any concerns about overreach can be addressed through cross-examination.

    C. Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendants’ Proffered Experts

    1. Beau Whitney

    Whitney is an economist retained to offer opinions regarding cannabis-industry market conditions and to rebut the reports of Plaintiff’s experts, Alex Cooley and Zamir Punja. Plaintiff sought exclusion on the grounds that Whitney’s rebuttal opinions rested on mischaracterizations of Cooley’s report, that his cannabis-market analysis was generic and irrelevant to Plaintiff’s rescission-only claims, that he lacked the qualifications and methodology necessary to rebut Punja’s opinions, and that portions of his report improperly addressed the mental states or beliefs of the parties.

    Whitney’s background in cannabis-industry economics, operations, and market analysis provided sufficient expertise to offer the opinions disclosed in his report. Moreover, his rebuttal of Cooley and Punja is grounded in his professional experience and review of the record. Plaintiff’s objections—whether directed at Whitney’s characterization of Cooley’s opinions, the breadth of his market analysis, or the depth of his engagement with HLVd-related materials—are better addressed through cross-examination and the Court’s own evaluation of the weight to be afforded his testimony.

    2. Barbara Webb

    Webb is a certified public accountant retained to rebut Cooley’s opinions concerning Devi’s accounting practices and tax-related communications. Plaintiff argued that Webb’s testimony should be excluded because it consists largely of narrative summaries and speculative interpretations of internal emails rather than the application of specialized accounting expertise.
    Webb is a CPA with specialized experience in cannabis-industry tax and accounting practices.

    Her rebuttal opinions responded directly to Cooley’s analysis of Devi’s accounting records and tax-related communications. Plaintiff’s challenges largely concerned the inferences Webb drew from internal emails and the extent to which those inferences differ from Cooley’s.

    In conclusion, the Court is well-positioned to distinguish between proper expert analysis and factual narrative, and to disregard any testimony that may stray beyond the permissible scope.

    Held

    1) The Court denied Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Zamir Punja.

    2) The Court denied Defendants’ joint motion to exclude the opinion testimony by Alex Cooley.

    3) The Court denied Plaintiff’s omnibus motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ proffered experts, Beau Whitney and Barbara Webb.

    Key Takeaway

    An expert is not required to possess the ideal dataset; rather, the expert must employ a reliable methodology given the available evidence. Punja’s opinions are not speculative merely because he lacked direct HLVd test results from 2021, particularly where the absence of such data is itself a product of Devi’s failure to conduct testing.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: 2 3 Suited, LLC V. Jigarkumar Patel
    Docket Number: 9:23cv81503
    Court Name: United States District Court, Florida Southern
    Order Date: February 18, 2026
  • Toxicology Expert Witness’ Testimony Related to Cannabis and Workplace Deficiencies Admitted

    Toxicology Expert Witness’ Testimony Related to Cannabis and Workplace Deficiencies Admitted

    On February 22, 2021, Justin Demary was working for Freedom Trucks of America, LLC (“Freedom Trucks”). He was asked to wash out a tank truck owned by Freedom Trucks. It appears that there is a dispute as to whether Justin was asked to wash the tank truck, or he entered the tank truck of his own volition, or at the behest of his friend and co-worker, Dustin Wynn. Justin and Wynn were unaware that the tank truck had been purged with nitrogen at the Vopak Terminal Deer Park facility (“Vopak Terminal”) because no warning tag was placed on the tanker by Vopak North America, Inc. (“Vopak”). Again, this is a disputed fact; a Vopak employee has testified that he did place a warning tag on the tank truck.

    Vopak operates a storage facility at which Freedom Truck had a liquid chemical cargo removed from the tanker about a month before Justin’s accident. The tanker was then transported back to Freedom Truck’s yard on or about January 27, or January 28, 2021, where it sat dormant until the date of the accident.

    Justin entered the tanker to perform the task but could not breath. He passed out and died of asphyxiation. Justin’s parents and only heirs, Daniel and Tammy Demary, have filed this wrongful death action against several Defendants for the death of their son.

    Motion to Exclude

    Vopak Terminal had hired Dr. Pablo Sanchez-Soria as an expert toxicologis/pharmacologist who is anticipated to testify that the level of cannabinoids and THC metabolites in Justin’s blood far exceeded the threshold for impairment. As such, Justin’s alleged impairment contributed to his decision to enter the tanker and his ultimate death.

    Plaintiffs requested that the Court exclude Soria’s testimony related to cannabis and workplace deficiencies at Freedom Trucks pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Daubert.

    Toxicology Expert Witness

    Pablo Sanchez-Soria is a Senior Toxicologist and Director of Health Sciences at CTEH® specializing in risk and exposure assessment, toxicity evaluations, emergency response toxicology, and in evaluating relationships between chemical exposure and disease causation. He has a double major in microbiology and nutritional sciences and a PhD in pharmacology and toxicology. He has been involved in the practice of toxicology and industrial hygiene and has specialized in quantitative exposure reconstruction of occupational and environmental hazards.

     Soria has served as a consulting toxicologist and industrial hygienist, and has developed plans to protect workers and communities from chemical exposure. Additionally, as a practicing toxicologist, he has evaluated the impairment and risk-perception impacts associated with the use of alcohol, and recreational, illicit and prescription drugs. He routinely conducts disease causation analysis by evaluating the scientific evidence relating chemical exposures to human diseases according to the methodology of toxicological causation analysis. Soria’s curriculum vitae lists numerous publications and presentations related to the study of toxicology, several of which relate to the effects of toxicants on the human body.

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

     

    Discussion by the Court

    Vopak’s defense in this case is that Justin’s death was caused by his own negligence and by the negligence of his employer, Freedom Trucks. Soria opines as to the following in his report:

    1. The use of cannabis is associated with impaired cognitive function and physiological response, including impairments in decision-making, risk-taking, balance, coordination, reaction time, spatial perception which may increase the risk of being involved in an accident due to impaired cognitive and motor skills. These impairments are associated with blood concentrations of cannabis and its metabolites in a dose-dependent manner.

    2. The presence and concentration of cannabis and its metabolites, 11-OH-THC in Demary’s blood sample results are useful indicators that he would have recently consumed (inhaled or ingested) cannabis.

    3. Demary’s employer did not properly establish industrial hygiene measures to control workplace hazards, highlighting a disregard for established safety protocols and the well-being of their employees.

    Qualifications

    Plaintiffs argued that Vopak cannot meet its burden to show that Soria has the requisite qualifications to opine on medical toxicology and the alleged impairment due to cannabis use. Plaintiffs pointed out that Soria’s education was focused on pharmacology and toxicology, but he is not a medical doctor, nor has he disclosed any specific training on medical toxicology or the effects of cannabis on the human body and any alleged impairment. It was noted that Soria has not authored any publications nor made any presentations regarding cannabis and its effect.

    Soria reviewed the NMS Labs toxicology report that established that Justin’s blood levels of THC were reported to be 9.9 ng/mL. Soria concluded that it was more likely than not that Justin was suffering from motor and cognitive impairments that may have contributed to his demise as a result of poor decision making. His report seeks to provide insight into effects that the specific amount of THC discovered in Justin’s bloodstream would likely have had on his body and mind while conscious, but makes no effort to challenge medical opinions or the cause of Justin’s death. The Court found that Soria is qualified to testify as an expert as to the effect of THC on the mind and body.

     Relevancy

    Defendants argued that Soria’s testimony is relevant because the evidence and facts—lab results, autopsy reports, testimony relating to marijuana use and chemical inhalation, etc.—involve complicated scientific issues, which, if brought before a jury without further explanation, are highly likely to leave the trier of fact confused and unable to reach a well-informed conclusion. Hence, Soria’s testimony is necessary to assist a jury in understanding that based upon science, the level of cannabinoids in a human system can make one impaired and have poor judgment. Defendants noted that precedential authority almost unanimously vouches for the admission of a toxicologist’s testimony to assist the trier of fact in understanding complex topics rooted in science, especially toxicology. Defendants cite to numerous cases that have held that evidence of impairment is relevant, admissible, and important to the issue of contributory negligence.

    Additionally, Defendants cite to numerous cases in which toxicologists are routinely allowed to testify about failed drug tests and the impairment of the drug-user. 

    Defendants also noted that Justin’s supervisor, Mark Francis, testified that Justin was never directed to enter the tank, and that 90 percent of tank cleanings are never done on the interior. It appeared that Defendant is attempting to show that Justin entered the tank of his own volition, entering the tank was a departure from protocol, and collectively revealed a pattern of erratic and irrational decision making by Justin. The Court found that Soria’s opinion as to Justin’s levels of THC and possible impairment is relevant.

    Reliability

    Plaintiff argued that Soria’s opinions as to Justin’s cannabis use and timing are inadmissible because they are based on unreliable and incomplete information.

    Plaintiffs complained that Soria does not reference Justin’s height, weight, or body habitus to discuss the effects that could have occurred in Justin due to cannabis ingestion, nor can he suggest the timing as to when Justin ingested cannabis. Plaintiffs fault Soria for the lack of evidence to establish the timing and as such, argued that Justin’s cannabis impairment cannot be verified. It was also noted that cannabis is not listed on the death certificate as a cause of death in the autopsy.

    Defendants remarked that the countless cited scientific methods can be applied to the facts of this case, and Soria details how the science of toxicology can tie together various case materials to offer a viable explanation for Justin’s behavior at the time of the incident.

    The Court found that Soria’s opinions are supported by peer-reviewed scientific studies and facts such as the lab results and deposition testimony. As such, a rigorous cross-examination would be the proper vehicle to challenge Plaintiffs’ objections as opposed to excluding the expert’s testimony.

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the opinions of Defendant’s expert witness Pablo Sanchez Soria.

    Key Takeaway:

    As a practicing toxicologist, Soria has evaluated the impairment and risk-perception impacts associated with the use of alcohol, and recreational, illicit and prescription drugs. Considering that, the Court held that Soria’s opinion as to Justin’s levels of THC and possible impairment is relevant. His report seeks to provide insight into effects that the specific amount of THC discovered in Justin’s bloodstream would likely have had on his body and mind while conscious, but makes no effort to challenge medical opinions or the cause of Justin’s death. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Demary V. Freedom Trucks of America LLC
    Docket Number: 2:22cv792
    Court: United States District Court, Louisiana Western
    Order Date: December 6, 2024
  • Psychiatry Expert Witness’ Testimony Regarding the Criteria for Cannabis Use Disorder Admitted

    Psychiatry Expert Witness’ Testimony Regarding the Criteria for Cannabis Use Disorder Admitted

    Defendant Ryan Vangdy is charged with knowingly possessing firearms while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

    The government filed a motion to exclude Defendant’s expert, Dr. Gregory Nawalanic. The government argued that the Court can exclude Nawalanic under Rule 702 for several reasons, specifically that the testimony is irrelevant, unhelpful to the jury, only serves to confuse the issues, and is likely to introduce inadmissible hearsay.

    Psychiatry Expert Witness

    Gregory Nawalanic, Psy.D., is a clinical assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Kansas Medical Center and the clinical director of Psychology Services at The University of Kansas Health System’s Strawberry Hill Campus.

    In addition to supervising the behavioral health staff, he provides clinical instruction to psychology interns and postdoctoral fellows, as well as psychiatry residents. He also operates as part of the executive leadership of the facility.

    Along with a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in psychology from Florida International University and Pepperdine University, respectively, he also holds a master’s degree and a doctor of psychology in clinical psychology from the American School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University. 

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

    Discussion by the Court

    To begin with, the Defendant proposed to introduce testimony from Gregory Nawalanic regarding the DSM-V criteria for cannabis use disorder, and to testify as to the difference between “frequent and infrequent” use of controlled substances.

    Defendant’s expert disclosure indicated that Nawalanic would testify that a hypothetical user who consumed marijuana two to four times a month would not meet the criteria for being diagnosed with cannabis use disorder under the DSM-5. Nawalanic would not offer an opinion as to whether Defendant was an unlawful user of a controlled substance on October 6, 2021.

    The Court found that Nawalanic’s testimony was relevant to the issues being presented to the jury. The primary inquiry for the jury is whether Defendant possessed a firearm in or affecting interstate commerce when he was a regular and ongoing user of a controlled substance. 

    Cannabis use disorder would make it more likely that the individual was an unlawful user within the meaning of the statute. Moreover, the Court held that this potentially helpful information was not greatly outweighed by the risk of confusion because Nawalanic is not trying to testify to the ultimate legal issues, and any hearsay concerns can be dealt with by contemporaneous objection.

    Held

    The Court denied the Government’s motion to exclude Dr. Gregory Nawalanic’s testimony.

    Key Takeaway:

    In conclusion, Nawalanic’s testimony provided the Court with potentially helpful information to determine whether Defendant possessed a firearm in or affecting interstate commerce when he was a regular and ongoing user of a controlled substance. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: USA v. Vangdy
    Docket Number: 6:23cr10027
    Court: United States District Court, Kansas
    Order Date: August 06, 2024