United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
HUNTERS RUN GUN CLUB, LLC, ET AL.
EDDIE D. BAKER
D. DICK CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Defendant's Eddie D. Baker
(“Baker”), Sugar-West, Inc. (“Sugar
West”), Bridgeview Gun Club, LLC
(“Bridgeview”) and Keith Morris
(“Morris”), Joint Daubert Motion to
Exclude the Report, Opinions and Testimony of Harold A.
Asher, CPA (“Asher”). The Motion is opposed by the
Plaintiffs, Hunters Run Gun Club, LLC (“Hunters
Run”) and Great International Land Company, LLC,
following reasons the Motion is DENIED.
International and Hunters Run are single member LLC's
owned by Ronald Duplessis
(“Duplessis”). In 2004, Great International acquired
improved property located at 1365 Northwest Drive, Port
Allen, Louisiana, (the ‘Property”) for the
operation of a semi-private gun club, by Hunters Run. In
2009, Great International sold the Property to the Law
Enforcement District of the Parish of West Baton Rouge, State
of Louisiana (the “LED”) and leased back the
Property which continued to be operated as a gun club by
Hunters Run. In 2011 the written lease between Great
International and the LED expired by its terms, but the lease
continued month-to-month through reconduction until November
23, 2016. In September 2016, the LED notified Great
International that it intended to “open
negotiations” for a new lease. Ultimately LED leased the
Property to Keith Morris (“Morris”) and the
Property was operated as a gun club by Bridgeview Gun Club,
dispute arises because of alleged business losses experienced
by the Duplesis entities, Hunters Run and Great
International. In short, Plaintiffs allege that the Hunters
Run former manager Eddie D. Baker (“Baker”)
misappropriated Hunters Run trade secrets and business
information and went to work for the competition, ie.
Bridgeview, and caused financial harm to Great International
and Hunters Run.
Asher, CPA was engaged by Greta International and Hunters Run
to provide opinion testimony regarding alleged financial
losses that Plaintiffs contend were caused by the Defendants.
The defendants move to exclude Asher's opinions claiming
that that “Asher (a) does not base his opinions on
sufficient facts or data, (b) conducted no investigation into
the alleged causation asserted by the Plaintiffs, and (c)
does not employ appropriate or reliable principles or
methodology, which can be tested.”
LAW AND ANALYSIS
testimony is admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence,
if (1) the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge,
skill, experience, training, or education, (2) the
expert's reasoning or methodology underlying the
testimony is sufficiently reliable, and (3) the testimony is
relevant. The party offering expert testimony is not
required to establish the correctness of the opinion; rather,
the proponent of the opinion testimony bears the burden of
establishing “by a preponderance of the evidence that
the testimony is reliable.” “Both the
determination of reliability itself and the factors taken
into account are left to the discretion of the district court
consistent with its gatekeeping function under Fed.R.Evid.
Rule of Evidence 702, allows a witness who is qualified as an
expert to testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(1) The expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(2) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(3) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and
(4) The expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the ...