Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02256/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02256-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David E. Wattel, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Stephen Browne, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 02-CV-2256-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant G. Dennis O'Brien's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs'

Expert Designation and Testimony (Doc. 175). On November 18, 2005, the Plaintiffs

disclosed their expert, Cary D. Ferchill, and his report on corporate governance standards.

Defendant O'Brien filed the present motion one month later arguing that Mr. Ferchill should

not be allowed to opine on the appropriate legal standard in this case or whether or not the

Defendants' conduct breached that suggested legal standard. According to Defendant

O'Brien, neither of these subjects is appropriate for expert testimony under Federal Rule of

Evidence 702. Specifically, Defendant O'Brien contends that Mr. Ferchill's opinions are in

admissible legal conclusions. The Court disagrees.

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides for the liberal admission of expert testimony

regarding factual matters. Expert testimony is admissible when it will assist the tier of fact

in understanding the evidence or determining a disputed issue of fact. As correctly noted by

the Plaintiffs, the Court will instruct the jury regarding the legal duties the Defendants owed

Case 2:02-cv-02256-PGR Document 190 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

to Marketlift. Accordingly, the Defendants may be liable for damages if the jury determines

they breached those legal duties. However, the standards of care that make up those duties

and what conduct constitutes a breach of those duties are factual questions and proper

subjects for expert testimony. As long as the expert's testimony assists the trier of fact in

understanding the evidence or determining disputed issues of fact, it will be admitted per

Rule 702. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant O'Brien's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Expert

Designation and Testimony (Doc. 175) is DENIED.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-02256-PGR Document 190 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2