Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_03-cv-00148/USCOURTS-alsd-1_03-cv-00148-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NORRIS ARMSTRONG, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 03-0148-WS-C

 )

HRB ROYALTY, INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

 )

HRB ROYALTY, INC., et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 03-0635-WS-C

 )

NORRIS ARMSTRONG, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a motion in limine filed by the Block defendants (“Block”) to

prevent plaintiff Armstrong Business Systems, Inc. (“ABS”) from presenting the testimony of its expert

witness, Jeffrey R. Sport. (Doc. 265). The parties have filed briefs in support of their respective

positions, (Docs. 266, 271, 276), and the motion is ripe for resolution. After carefully considering the

foregoing materials, the Court concludes that the motion is due to be granted.

BACKGROUND

By separate order, the Court has resolved Block’s motion in limine to exclude Sport as an

expert witness with respect to the determination of the “fair and equitable price” required by paragraph

24 of the franchise agreements upon their termination. (Doc. 302). Block’s present motion seeks to

exclude Sport as an expert witness with respect to ABS’s claim for damages under Count Ten of the

Case 1:03-cv-00148-KD-C Document 324 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 4
1See Quiet Technology DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333, 1341 (11th

Cir. 2003)(although there is “some overlap” among these inquiries, they “are distinct concepts that

courts and litigants must take care not to conflate”).

2Expert testimony must also satisfy other applicable rules of evidence, including Rules 401, 402

and 403. Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 1999).

-2-

third amended complaint for Block’s alleged intentional interference with ABS’s business relationships

following the termination of the franchise agreements.

DISCUSSION

As set forth in a previous order, “[e]xpert testimony may be admitted into evidence if: (1) the

expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) the

methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable as determined by the

sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)];

and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application of scientific, technical or

specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” City of Tuscaloosa

v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc., 158 F.3d 548, 562 (11th Cir. 1998)(footnote omitted). There are thus

three discrete inquiries: qualifications, relevance, and reliability.1 The burden of establishing these three

requisites lies with the proponent. United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir.

2004)(en banc).2

To the requirement of Rule 401 that evidence possess a “tendency to make the existence of any

fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable,” Rule

702 adds that expert evidence must “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a

fact in issue.” Among other attributes of this requirement, the evidence “must have a valid scientific

connection to the disputed facts in the case.” Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp., 184 F.3d 1300,

1312 (11th Cir. 1999). 

Sport calculated that ABS’s damages from Block’s interference with its business relationships

in 2004 totaled $586,167, based on an alleged loss of 7,849 customers. (Doc. 266, Exhibit 1 at 3, ¶

Case 1:03-cv-00148-KD-C Document 324 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 4
3This figure includes: (1) ABS customers in 2003 that used Block in 2004; (2) ABS customers

in 2003 that used neither ABS nor Block in 2004; and (3) 2004 Block customers that did not use ABS

in 2003. (Id.).

-3-

8; id. at 6).3 However, he testified at his deposition that he has no basis for concluding or even

assuming that more than a few of these past or potential customers were lost due to the specific acts of

interference alleged by ABS. (Id., Exhibit 2). He testified instead that his damages calculation depends

on the premise that Block had no right to compete with ABS following termination of the franchise

agreements, so that the very act of Block’s competition was itself wrongful. (Id. at 63-64, 66-67, 84,

88, 94).

ABS agrees that “the basis of Sport’s damage calculation is Block’s wrongful entry into the

Mobile market.” (Doc. 271 at 9). Again, ABS acknowledges that Sport’s opinions depend upon “the

assumption that Block’s entry into the Mobile market during the 2004 tax season was wrongful.” (Id.

at 11). ABS continues that, “[i]f the jury agrees with this predicate, then Sport’s damage calculations

will be helpful to the jury in calculating damages.” (Id.). ABS thus correctly concedes that, unless the

mere fact of Block competing with ABS following termination of the franchise agreements was

wrongful, Sport’s opinions are not helpful to the jury and thus fail the relevance test that is an

indispensable criterion of admissibility under Daubert and Rules 401 and 702. 

By separate order, the Court has concluded that ABS may not state or suggest in any fashion

that Block’s post-termination competition supports any claim by ABS for affirmative relief. (Doc. 322). 

Because ABS concedes that this ruling renders Sport’s opinions irrelevant, Block’s motion in limine as

to those opinions is due to be granted. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Block’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Jeffrey R.

Sport with respect to damages from Block’s alleged intentional interference with business relationships

is granted.

Case 1:03-cv-00148-KD-C Document 324 Filed 11/30/05 Page 3 of 4
-4-

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2005.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00148-KD-C Document 324 Filed 11/30/05 Page 4 of 4