Plaintiff filed suit against defendant related to a dispute over the selling of a business. Plaintiff hired a Mathematical Sciences Expert Witness. Defendant filed a motion to exclude, which was granted by the court.
Facts: This case (Huntingford v. Pharmacy Corporation of America, dba PharMerica – United States District Court – District of New Mexico – March 1st, 2019) involves a dispute over the selling of a business. The plaintiff argues that he is entitled to a deferred payment after selling his pharmacy business to the defendant. The plaintiff has hired George Sandoval (Mathematical Sciences Expert Witness) to provide testimony. The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
Discussion: The defendant argues that Mr. Sandoval’s expert testimony should be excluded because he is not qualified to offer an opinion on mathematics or accounting. In addition, the defendant argues that Mr. Sandoval’s opinions are not relevant or reliable because the report only offers an opinion on mathematical calculations that the jury could complete without the help of an expert. Also, the defendant argues that Mr. Sandoval has not explained what methodologies he used to generate his opinion.
The court opines that Mr. Sandoval’s expert testimony should be excluded because his report does not have relevance and reliability and it fails to demonstrate that Mr. Sandoval is qualified as an expert in the area at issue in this case. The court first notes that the report is so short and generalized that it is hard to ascertain what Mr. Sandoval is opining on and leaves the court to guess.
The court notes that the clearest opinion in the report is that the spreadsheets at issue contain discrepancies, but the plaintiff admits that these discrepancies that Mr. Sandoval has identifies in the Earn-Out Reconciliation documents are based on calculations that could be made by a law witness. This goes against admitting Mr. Sandoval’s testimony as the court can exclude a proffered expert opinion for lack of relevance if the opinion reaches conclusions that the jury or lay witness could reach without assistance. The court opines that the jury will be fully capable of adding and subtracting columns on a spreadsheet to determine if there are mathematical discrepancies.
In addition, the defendant notes that Mr. Sandoval’s testimony is not sufficiently reliable because he does not identify any methodology used in determining that there are discrepancies in the Earn-out Reconciliation. The court opines that the report does not adequately explain what Mr. Sandoval’s theories or conclusions are, what methodology he used to reach those conclusions, or how those conclusions are tied to his specific experience and expertise in the pharmacy industry.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of George Sandoval is granted.