Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Irrelevant

  • Economics Expert Witness’ Testimony Limited Because His Zero Damages Opinion is Irrelevant

    Economics Expert Witness’ Testimony Limited Because His Zero Damages Opinion is Irrelevant

    Plaintiff I-Mab Biopharma (“I-Mab” or “Plaintiff”) brought trade secret misappropriation claims against Defendants Inhibrx, Inc. (“Inhibrx”) and Brendan Eckelman (“Dr. Eckelman” and collectively with Inhibrx, “Defendants”). 

    Plaintiff asserted that Defendants misappropriated nine trade secrets (that correspond to molecules designed to treat cancer) that are referred to herein as Trade Secret 1, Trade Secret 2, Trade Secret 4, Trade Secret 5, Trade Secret 6, Trade Secret 7, Trade Secret 8, Trade Secret 9 and Trade Secret 10. 

    Plaintiff sought to exclude three categories of Defendants’ damages expert Dr. Richard Manning‘s opinions.

    Economics Expert Witness

    Dr. Richard Manning’s expertise includes economic valuation and damages, intellectual property, breach of contract, fraud, and other commercial litigation. He provides testimony and consultation in all these areas and on securities litigation, tax, antitrust and competition, and public policy.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Manning’s reliance on the “Book of Wisdom” doctrine

    Under the reasonable royalty framework of damages permitted under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, parties rely upon a hypothetical negotiation analysis to “attempt to ascertain the royalty upon which the parties would have agreed had they successfully negotiated an agreement just before [misappropriation] began.” The hypothetical negotiation must attempt to “recreate the ex ante licensing negotiation scenario and to describe the resulting agreement.” 

    However, the analysis “permits and often requires a Court to look to events and facts that occurred thereafter and that could not have been known to or predicted by the hypothesized negotiators.” Facts that post-date the hypothetical negotiation may sometimes be relied upon in a reasonable royalty analysis as part of the “Book of Wisdom.”

    Plaintiff asserted that Manning’s opinions based on events that occurred years after the date of the hypothetical negotiation in November 2021 should be excluded because he improperly utilizes the Book of Wisdom. According to Plaintiff, while the Book of Wisdom would permit an expert to rely on post-negotiation evidence to demonstrate a party’s actual state of mind in November 2021, Manning does not rely on such evidence in this way—and instead improperly uses it to replace the inquiry into what the parties would have anticipated.

    Plaintiff asserted that Manning improperly used the Book of Wisdom with respect to two types of post-negotiation evidence: (1) evidence regarding Inhibrx’s decision to terminate INBRX-105 in January 2024 (“opinions relating to INBRX-105’s termination”) and (2) changes at I-Mab that took place in 2022 through 2024 (“opinions relating to later-occurring events at I-Mab”).

    1. Opinions relating to INBRX-105’s termination

    Parties’ Position

    Defendants argued that it would be nonsensical to use I-Mab’s information to modify INBRX-105 when doing so would require starting over on manufacturing and toxicity development to support an entirely new IND application and filing that new application with the FDA.

    The Court refused to exclude Manning’s opinions relating to INBRX-105’s termination for two main reasons. First, as Defendants point out, it was Plaintiff’s damages expert who initially opined about INBRX-105’s termination, stating that it “does not change the parties’ perspectives and negotiating positions as of a hypothetical negotiation in November 2021.”  As a general matter, it is of course appropriate for an expert’s rebuttal report to respond to another expert’s opinions. And Manning does just that in at least certain of the challenged portions of his report.

    Beyond that, Plaintiff’s argument is that at the time of the hypothetical negotiation, Defendants viewed INBRX-105 “as having significant value” and therefore the decision to terminate the program in January 2024 does not reflect what the parties were thinking in November 2021 (and thus Manning’s related opinions must be excluded). But Defendants are of course permitted to point to evidence to rebut the notion that they viewed INBRX-105 as having significant value in November 2021. Indeed, Defendants point out that Plaintiff’s own experts opine that leading up to the hypothetical negotiation, Inhibrx was concerned about INBRX-105’s likelihood of success.

    Court’s Decision

    In that vein, Defendants argued that Manning’s opinions relating to INBRX-105’s termination are consistent with Defendants’ views in November 2021 that there was much uncertainty regarding the development of INBRX-105. The Court concluded that it was not an improper use of the Book of Wisdom. In the end, it will be up to the jury to ultimately decide, based on all of the evidence, how Defendants viewed the INBRX-105 program at the time of the hypothetical negotiation. 

    Opinions relating to later occurring events at I-Mab

    Plaintiff also moved to exclude Manning’s reliance on changes at I-Mab that occurred after the November 2021 hypothetical negotiation, including its decreasing stock price in 2022, termination of its partnership with AbbVie in September 2023 and I-Mab’s restructuring in April 2024; Plaintiff argued that this was improper use of the Book of Wisdom. 

    The two paragraphs at issue in Manning’s rebuttal report discuss I-Mab’s termination of its partnership with AbbVie and related decreasing stock price, and they are clearly responding to points made by Plaintiff’s experts regarding I-Mab’s partnership with AbbVie. Similarly, the two paragraphs at issue in Manning’s supplemental report relate to I-Mab’s restructuring and respond to points made by Plaintiff’s damages expert regarding this event.

    The Court, once again, held that it is proper for Manning to respond to opinions raised by Plaintiff’s experts.

    Manning’s opinion regarding “actual damages”

    The DTSA provides that damages for misappropriation may be quantified in two ways: (1) damages for actual loss plus unjust enrichment or (2) a reasonable royalty.

    Manning opined that he cannot rule out the conclusion that Plaintiff’s “actual damages” are zero (the “zero damages opinion”). Plaintiff argued that Manning’s zero damages opinion should be excluded as irrelevant because Plaintiff’s damages claims are not based on actual loss, and even if Plaintiff’s actual damages were zero, Plaintiff would still be entitled to a reasonable royalty. 

    The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants ignored the “actual words” that Manning used, as he did not opine in the zero damages opinion that Plaintiff’s “reasonable royalty damages” are zero (nor do Defendants point to anywhere else in Manning’s report where he opined that Plaintiff’s reasonable royalty damages should be zero). Nor did Defendants explain why an opinion that Plaintiff’s “actual damages . . . are zero” should be interpreted to actually mean that Plaintiff’s “reasonable royalty damages are zero.” 

    Moreover, the Court agreed with Plaintiff that Manning does not seem to provide any facts or analysis in support of the zero damages opinion.

    Held

    Plaintiff sought to exclude three categories of Dr. Richard Manning’s opinions. The third category was about Manning’s alternative damages theory but the Court reserved decision on the third category until it resolved Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the opinions of Roland Newman. One of Plaintiff’s arguments is that Manning’s alternative damages theory should be excluded because Manning relied only on a conversation with Newman in support. The Court granted this portion of Plaintiff’s Daubert motion regarding Manning’s opinions.

    In conclusion, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Manning’s opinions.

    Key Takeaway:

    Manning did not improperly utilizes the Book of Wisdom. Also, it is of course appropriate for an expert’s rebuttal report to respond to another expert’s opinions. And Manning does just that in at least certain of the challenged portions of his report. However, Manning’s zero damages opinion was excluded as the Court agreed with Plaintiff that Manning does not seem to provide any facts or analysis in support of the zero damages opinion.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: I-Mab Biopharma V. Inhibrx, Inc. Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:22cv276
    Court: United States District Court, Delaware
    Order Date: October 17, 2024
  • Forensic Accounting Expert Witness’ Opinion About Defendant’s Potential Contribution of APFOs Admitted

    Forensic Accounting Expert Witness’ Opinion About Defendant’s Potential Contribution of APFOs Admitted

    The case involves allegations concerning the contamination of drinking water in Hoosick Falls, New York, by perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical commonly referred to as PFOA. Plaintiffs claim that the primary source of this contamination was a fabric coating facility located on McCaffrey Street. According to their allegations, DuPont manufactured and sold aqueous fluoropolymer dispersions (AFD) containing ammonium perfluorooctanoate (APFO) to Saint-Gobain and Allied Signal, who used these products at the facility. APFO, when dissociated in water, forms perfluorooctanoate (PFO) and, under acidic conditions, transforms into PFOA, which contributed to the contamination. 

    Plaintiffs allege that DuPont supplied PFOA-containing AFD products to these companies from the 1950s through 2015, despite being aware of the health hazards associated with PFOA exposure by 1984. They further assert that DuPont was also aware of technologies that could have reduced or eliminated PFOA emissions but chose not to advise its customers or recommend testing for PFOA in groundwater near their facilities. Instead, DuPont allegedly prioritized profits over safety, continuing to sell these products without warning about the risks. 

    DuPont, in its defense, denied many of the allegations and disputed its role as a direct and proximate cause of the contamination. It argued that it was not a significant contributor to the contamination of the Hoosick Falls water supply. To support this, DuPont submitted expert reports from Adam Love and David Duffus, suggesting that the company contributed only around 15% of the total AFDs delivered to the McCaffrey Street facility between 1991 and 2003. Plaintiffs, however, sought to exclude their expert testimony, arguing that they were not relevant to the case. 

    Environment Engineering Expert Witness

    Dr. Adam Love earned a Bachelor of Arts in Geosciences from Franklin & Marshall College in 1996, followed by a Master of Science in Material Science and Mineral Engineering in 1998, and a Doctor of Philosophy in Civil and Environmental Engineering in 2002, both from the University of California, Berkeley. He accumulated over 20 years of experience in environmental forensics, site characterization, remediation, exposure assessment, human health risk, and contamination transport analysis. 

    From 1996 to 2002, Love worked as a graduate student researcher at UC Berkeley, contributing to contaminant transport and environmental forensic evaluations. He developed new techniques for environmental pollution reconstruction and allocation. From 2002 to 2009, he served as a scientist at the Forensic Science Center at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 

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

    Forensic Accounting Expert Witness 

    David Duffus is a forensic accountant with over 25 years of experience across diverse industries. He earned a BA in Economics and Political Science, an MBA in Accounting and Finance, and held several professional designations, including CPA, ABV, CFE, and CFF. 

    Throughout his career, Duffus served as an expert on more than 100 occasions, testifying over 90 times in depositions, trials, and alternative dispute settings. He handled disputes involving values up to $275 million and project values exceeding $300 million. Additionally, he acted as an arbitrator and neutral accountant in post-acquisition and valuation-related disputes. 

    Since 1992, Duffus specialized in complex litigation services, forensic accounting, and valuation assignments for a wide range of businesses, from start-ups to Fortune 100 companies. He collaborated extensively with legal counsel through all phases of litigation, providing expert witness and deposition testimony in both state and federal courts, as well as in alternative dispute settings. Before joining HKA, Duffus dedicated nearly 17 years to Baker Tilly’s Global Forensics & Litigation Services practice, including 15 years as a partner. 

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

    Discussion by the Court 

    Adam Love 

    Plaintiffs sought to exclude Love’s testimony on the grounds of irrelevance, asserting that his opinions did not cover the full period during which DuPont supplied chemicals to the McCaffrey Street site. They argued that Love’s data only reflected roughly a third of the known supply period, making it insufficient to determine DuPont’s contribution to the contamination. Plaintiffs further contended that his opinions did not make it less probable that DuPont significantly contributed to the contamination in Hoosick Falls. 

    The Court, however, found Love’s testimony relevant under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which allows evidence that has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable. The comparative data he presented could reasonably lead a jury to conclude that DuPont was not a significant contributor to the contamination. Additionally, the Court noted that Love’s report explicitly recognized the limitations in the available data, particularly regarding the APFO content in the AFDs supplied by DuPont. While Plaintiffs argued that this limited scope could confuse the jury, the Court emphasized that such concerns could be addressed through cross-examination rather than by excluding the testimony. Thus, Love’s testimony was found to be both relevant and based on a sufficient foundation. 

    David Duffus 

    Plaintiffs also sought to exclude Duffus’ expert testimony, arguing that his reliance on a limited data set—specifically, records from Saint-Gobain covering a narrow time frame—rendered his conclusions irrelevant. Duffus’ report addressed DuPont’s supply of AFDs between 1991 and 2003, but Plaintiffs argued that this narrow focus could not accurately assess DuPont’s contribution to the contamination. 

    In response, the Court found Duffus’ testimony relevant under Rule 702, which establishes a broad standard for the admissibility of expert opinions. Despite the limited data set, the Court concluded that Duffus had based his opinions on the best available information, which was accessible to both parties. The Court also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the source of the data—Saint-Gobain—undermined the testimony’s foundation. Instead, it held that any limitations in Duffus’ analysis could be explored during cross-examination, rather than serving as grounds for exclusion. Permitting Plaintiffs’ able counsel to cross examine Duffus about the perceived limitations of the data set and what, if any, information can be gleaned from his opinion about DuPont’s potential contribution of APFOs is considered a better remedy than total preclusion of this opinion.

    Held 

    The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motions to exclude expert testimonies from Adam Love and David Duffus, ruling they met relevance and admissibility standards under Federal Rules 401(a) and 702. 

    Key Takeaways: 

    • Relevance of Expert Testimony: The Court affirmed that expert testimony can be relevant even if it doesn’t cover the entire time period of alleged contamination. Partial data can still be useful in assessing a party’s potential contribution to environmental damage. 
    • Cross-Examination vs. Exclusion: The Court favored allowing expert testimony and subjecting it to cross-examination rather than excluding it entirely, even when there were potential limitations in the data or analysis. 
    • Foundation for Expert Opinions: The Court found that expert opinions based on limited available data can still have sufficient foundation, especially in cases where complete historical records may not exist. 
    • Source of Data: The Court determined that the source of data (in this case, from one of the parties) does not automatically render expert testimony inadmissible or lacking foundation.

    Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

    Chemical Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony About the Harms Surrounding PFOA Limited

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Baker V. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. 
    Docket Number: 1:16cv917 
    Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of New York 
    Order Date: September 13, 2024 
  • Accounting Expert Witness’ Testimony is Not Relevant to Any Claim for Damages 

    Accounting Expert Witness’ Testimony is Not Relevant to Any Claim for Damages 

    Defendants Dahv Kliner and Roger Farrow were former employees of JDS Uniphase, Plaintiff Lumentum’s predecessor. They had signed an “Employee Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement” with the company which prohibited them from disclosing JDS Uniphase’s proprietary information to anyone outside the company.

    Kliner and Farrow left JDS Uniphase in 2012 and 2013, respectively, to join Defendant nLIGHT. Plaintiff Lumentum later claimed that Kliner and Farrow used JDS Uniphase’s proprietary information to help nLIGHT secure two types of patents: the “adjustable beam patents” and the “triple-clad fiber patents.” Lumentum also alleged that nLIGHT used these patents to develop fiber laser products, including the “Corona” and “AFX” models.

    In 2022, Lumentum filed a lawsuit, asserting breach-of-contract claims against Kliner and Farrow.

    To support its breach-of-contract claims, Lumentum intended to present testimony from its damages expert witness, Donald Gorowsky, on three topics:

    (1) Kliner and Farrow’s total compensation from JDS Uniphase,

    (2) their compensation from nLIGHT, and

    (3) the total revenues and gross profits from nLIGHT’s Corona fiber laser products.

    Defendants nLIGHT, Dahv Kliner, and Roger Farrow moved to exclude Gorowsky’s testimony, arguing that it is unnecessary and unreliable.

    Accounting Expert Witness

    Donald Alan Gorowsky, C.P.A., J.D., has more than 40 years of combined experience in audit, accounting, finance, general management, financial consulting, and expert witness services. Gorowsky has specialized in financial consulting and expert witness services since 1990. As a financial expert on damages, Gorowsky provides assistance to attorneys in a variety of litigation matters and disputes involving many types of claims including business litigation, employment, intellectual property infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, insurance claims and forensic accounting. Don also has significant experience with employment disputes involving financial advisors in the securities industry (FINRA).

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

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Defendants’ Argument

    Defendants sought to exclude Gorowsky’s testimony, arguing it was both unnecessary and unreliable. They contended that Gorowsky’s opinions were irrelevant since Lumentum could not legally claim the types of damages Gorowsky would address. They also pointed out that there was no claim for monetary damages against nLIGHT. Consequently, Gorowsky’s opinions on nLIGHT’s revenues and profits could be misinterpreted as evidence of damages against nLIGHT, rather than the individuals involved in the breach of contract.

    B. Plaintiff’s Counterargument

    Lumentum countered that Gorowsky’s testimony was essential for proving damages related to unjust enrichment. Lumentum claimed it was entitled to some of Kliner’s and Farrow’s compensation from JDS Uniphase and nLIGHT due to their alleged breach of non-disclosure agreements and the subsequent use of proprietary information. They argued that Gorowsky’s insights on calculating compensation and revenues would assist the jury in determining damages.

    C. Defendants’ Rebuttal

    Defendants argued that Gorowsky’s testimony was irrelevant and unsupported by both law and fact. They maintained that California law did not allow for recovery of compensation earned during employment for breaches occurring afterward. Additionally, they stated that nLIGHT’s profits did not benefit Kliner and Farrow, and no evidence suggested they received a portion of nLIGHT’s profits.

    D. Court’s Analysis

    i) Kliner and Farrow’s total compensation from JDS Uniphase

    The Court observed that Lumentum’s request could set a troubling precedent by seeking to recover salaries and benefits paid over a decade ago based on a single breached provision. California’s Labor Code prohibits employers from reclaiming wages already paid. The statute broadly defines wages to include all forms of compensation and benefits, and Section 221 prevents recovery of these from past employment.

    A relevant case, DHR Int’l Inc. v. Charlson, illustrated that recovery of paid bonuses was barred by the same legal principle. Similarly, since Kliner and Farrow had earned their salaries and benefits from JDS Uniphase, Lumentum could not reclaim these amounts as damages.

    The Court also noted that contract damages are generally limited to what was foreseeable at the time the contract was made. California law supports the notion that employers cannot recover wages paid during the period of employment unless expressly stated in the contract. Thus, Lumentum could not claim these as damages.

    ii) Kliner and Farrow’s compensation from nLIGHT

    Lumentum’s claim for unjust enrichment was also addressed. California law does not support an unjust enrichment claim when an enforceable express contract exists. Lumentum’s complaint did not include a claim under California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, nor did it request unjust enrichment damages explicitly. Therefore, Lumentum could not pursue unjust enrichment damages based on the current claims.

    Furthermore, Lumentum failed to provide sufficient evidence to support an unjust enrichment claim. Lumentum wanted Gorowsky to testify about the salaries and benefits paid to Kliner and Farrow by nLIGHT. Lumentum would need to prove how much of these payments were related to the intellectual property in dispute. On the existing record, a jury would need to speculate as to how much, if at all, Kliner and Farrow were unjustly enriched by the disclosure of the disputed information. This lack of clarity was insufficient to establish a factual issue for trial.

    iii) Kliner and Farrow’s total revenues and gross profits from nLIGHT’s Corona fiber laser products

    Lumentum aimed to have Gorowsky testify about nLIGHT’s revenues and gross profits from the Corona series fiber laser products. However, this request was also impermissible. Defendants pointed out that there was no evidence showing that Kliner and Farrow received any portion of the nLIGHT profits that Lumentum sought to reclaim. They emphasized that these benefits belonged to nLIGHT, which was neither a party to the contracts in question nor a defendant in the breach of contract claims. Gorowsky’s testimony regarding nLIGHT’s revenues and profits was deemed irrelevant.

    The Court granted the motion to exclude Gorowsky’s testimony as it did not pertain to any claim for damages in this case. However, this decision did not affect the potential for Lumentum to pursue other claims, including nominal damages for breach of contract.

    Held

    The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiff’s damages expert witness, Donald Gorowsky’s testimony.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court deemed Gorowsky’s testimony on Kliner and Farrow’s compensation and nLIGHT’s revenues irrelevant to the breach-of-contract claims. California’s Labor Code bars recovering wages and benefits already paid during employment.

    Lumentum’s unjust enrichment claim was also invalid, as it neither invoked California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act nor requested unjust enrichment damages. Furthermore, Lumentum failed to prove how Kliner and Farrow were unjustly enriched, making Gorowsky’s testimony speculative.

    The Court excluded Gorowsky’s opinions on nLIGHT’s profits because there was no evidence linking those profits to Kliner and Farrow, and nLIGHT was not a party to the breach-of-contract claims.

    In conclusion, the Court held that Gorowsky’s testimony did not pertain to the permissible claims for damages in this case and granted the motion to exclude his testimony.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Lumentum Operations LLC V. nLIGHT, Inc.
    Docket Number: 3:22cv5186
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
    Order Date: September 6, 2024