Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OBESITY RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

FIBER RESEARCH 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO STRIKE 

DEFENDANT'S REBUTTAL 

EXPERT REPORT OF RICHARD 

HOFFMAN

[ECF NO. 385]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Expert Report of 

Richard Hoffman and Preclude his Testimony at Trial filed on August 18, 

2017. (ECF No. 385). Defendant responded in opposition on September 8, 

2017. (ECF No. 401). Plaintiff filed a reply on September 15, 2017. (ECF 

No. 409). 

There is a long and sordid history of unnecessary discovery litigation in 

this case. (See ECF No. 271 at 8-10). This motion adds another page to the 

chapter. 

It starts with Plaintiff ORI’s decision to have its damages expert, Neil J. 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 411 Filed 09/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

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

Beaton, express no opinion whatsoever in his initial expert report. (See ECF 

No. 81). Despite the fact that Defendant FRI was seeking disgorgement of 

ORI’s profits as its measure of damages, ORI had Mr. Beaton opine that he 

could not provide an opinion about damages without financial records of FRI. 

(Id.). FRI served the report of its rebuttal expert, Richard Hoffman, in which 

he similarly expressed no opinion, as there was nothing to rebut, but added 

his view of the methodology he would have used to determine damages. (Id.). 

ORI moved to strike the Hoffman rebuttal report as not a proper rebuttal to 

the non-opinions expressed by their expert. (ECF No. 80). The Court did 

strike Mr. Hoffman’s report to the extent that addressed his hypothetical 

methodology as it was not in response to anything in the Beaton report. 

(ECF No. 81). 

Then, ORI served the supplemental report of Mr. Beaton, FRI served 

the supplemental rebuttal report of Mr. Hoffman and FRI moved to strike 

certain opinions of Mr. Beaton as improper supplementation. (ECF No. 177). 

The Court granted FRI’s motion in its entirety, striking all but two opinions 

expressed by Mr. Beaton in his supplemental report. (ECF No. 271). This 

Court’s Order was affirmed by the district court on August 4, 2017. (ECF No. 

381). 

ORI now claims that the supplemental expert report of Mr. Hoffman 

should be stricken and Mr. Hoffman be precluded from testifying. (ECF No. 

385). ORI asserts that because Mr. Hoffman was responding to opinions 

expressed by Mr. Beaton in his supplemental expert report, and all but two of 

Mr. Beaton’s opinions have been struck, that Mr. Hoffman’s rebuttal to Mr. 

Beaton’s stricken opinions also must be struck. (Id.). 

The absurdity of ORI’s position should be obvious. Mr. Hoffman 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 411 Filed 09/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

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

properly responded to opinions expressed by Mr. Beaton. See Rules 

26(a)(2)(B) and (D)(ii), Fed. R. Civ. P. The fact that certain of the opinions 

expressed by Mr. Beaton later were struck does not make the Hoffman 

supplemental report improper. It was a proper rebuttal report. Moreover, 

two of Mr. Beaton's opinions were not struck. ORI’s assertion that Mr. 

Hoffman’s report only addressed the stricken opinions of Mr. Beaton is not 

persuasive. The Court has read both reports and disagrees. And, even if 

correct, it would not be a basis to strike a report which was proper rebuttal

when filed. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

To the extent that ORI decides to and is permitted to call Mr. Beaton as 

an expert witness and the district court allows Mr. Beaton to offer his 

surviving opinions, FRI may seek to call Mr. Hoffman to rebut those opinions, 

as expressed in Mr. Hoffman’s supplemental rebuttal expert report. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to strike the supplemental rebuttal expert report of 

Richard Hoffman is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 411 Filed 09/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3