Expert Witness Blog
Summary: Banking Expert Witness testimony allowed as the court concluded that, because the expert is experienced, he does not need to identify the source of specific industry standards
Facts: This case (Noble Bottling, LLC et al v. Hull & Chandler, P.A. et al – United States District Court – Western District of North Carolina – January 4, 2023) involves a claim of a stolen deposit placed in a bank. The plaintiffs allege that, as part of a lending agreement, they were required to deposit 2.765 million dollars into a restricted Bank of America account as security. The loan was never made and the deposit was stolen by Reinhart Holdings LLC. The lawsuit claims that the defendants verified to the plaintiffs the authenticity and security of the restricted bank account. To assist with their case, the plaintiffs hired Banking Expert Witness Andrew Manley to provide expert witness testimony. The defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
Discussion: The defendants allege that Mr. Manley’s testimony should be excluded because he did not review the loan agreement, does not identify the nature or source of specific industry standards, and doesn’t cite and standards, guidelines, or publications.
The defendants argue that Mr. Manley’s testimony lacks reliable methodology. The court notes, however, that an experiential expert does not have to rely on a scientific method. The court continues, stating that Mr. Manley can show how his experience in the industry led to his conclusions and how his experience applies to the facts of this case.
The court states that Mr. Manley has 35 years of experience at good faith deposits. The court mentions that his experience showed how he reached his conclusions and why his experience is enough to draw his conclusions. The defendants stated that Mr. Manley’s did not review the specific loan agreement in this case. The court states, however, that Mr. Manley did not provide an opinion on the specific agreement, only what he believes are the industry custom in terms of deposits.
The court concludes that any arguments as to this expert witness is best brought out on cross-examination.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Andrew Manley is denied.