Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00751/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00751-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:0001 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade)

---

1

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BONA FIDE CONGLOMERATE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOURCEAMERCA; PRIDE 

INDUSTRIES, INC.; KENT, CAMPA & 

KATE, INC.; SERVICESOURCE, INC.; 

JOB OPTIONS, INC.; GOODWILL 

INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA; LAKEVIEW CENTER, 

INC.; THE GINN GROUP, INC.; 

CORPORATE SOURCE, INC.; CW 

RESOURCES; NATIONAL COUNCIL 

OF SOURCEAMERICA EMPLOYERS; 

and OPPORTUNITY VILLAGE, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

ORDER 

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART BONA FIDE’S 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE 

TESTIMONY OF MARY KAREN 

WILLS [ECF No. 561];

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART 

SOURCEAMERICA’S MOTION TO 

EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF 

KEVIN M. JANS [ECF No. 521];

(3) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART 

SOURCEAMERICA’s MOTION TO 

STRIKE DECLARATIONS OF 

KEVIN M. JANS [ECF No. 575].

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 37
2

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

SOURCEAMERICA,

Counterclaimant,

v.

BONA FIDE CONGLOMERATE, INC.; 

and RUBEN LOPEZ,

Counterdefendants.

Pending before the Court are three motions pertaining to expert testimony. On 

July 13, 2018, Defendant SourceAmerica filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony 

of Kevin M. Jans (ECF No. 521). This motion has been fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 546, 

572.) On August 6, 2018, Plaintiff Bona Fide filed its motion to exclude the expert 

testimony of Mary Karen Wills, (ECF No. 561), which has similarly received the benefit 

of full briefing. (ECF Nos. 550, 573.) Thereafter, SourceAmerica moved to strike two 

nearly-identical declarations by Mr. Jans (ECF No. 575); the declarations at issue had 

been submitted by Bona Fide in opposition to SourceAmerica’s motion for summary 

judgment and to SourceAmerica’s motion to exclude Mr. Jans’s testimony. BonaFide 

submitted a response to the motion to strike (ECF No. 585); SourceAmerica filed no 

reply. 

Having considered the applicable law and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds 

as follows: Bona Fide’s motion to exclude the testimony of Mary Karen Wills is granted 

in part and denied in part (ECF No. 561). SourceAmerica’s motion to exclude the 

testimony of Kevin M. Jans is granted in part and denied in part (ECF No. 521). 

SourceAmerica’s motion to strike portions of Mr. Jans’s declarations is also granted in 

part and denied in part (ECF No. 575).1

I. BACKGROUND

The AbilityOne Program is a public-private procurement system designed to fulfill 

 

1 The Court considered all of the arguments presented in all the foregoing motions, even those not 

discussed in this Order. To the extent that arguments are not acknowledged in this Order, they are 

rejected. 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 37
3

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O-Day (“JWOD”) Act, 41 U.S.C. § 8501 et seq., by 

requiring federal agencies to purchase select products and services from Non-Profit 

Agencies (“NPA”s) that provide employment and training opportunities for persons who 

are blind or have severe disabilities. 41 C.F.R. § 51-1.1. The AbilityOne Program is 

administered by the AbilityOne Commission (“AbilityOne Commission”), which in turn 

has designated SourceAmerica as a Central Nonprofit Agency (“CNA”) responsible for 

helping it carry out its mission under the JWOD Act.

 As a CNA, SourceAmerica helps to recommend and design service contracts, 

named “Opportunities,” for participating NPAs to bid on. In this capacity, 

SourceAmerica “functions as a technical evaluation panel and makes recommendations to 

the Commission on the qualifications and abilities of prospective nonprofit agencies to 

perform the work.” Nat’l Telecommuting Inst., Inc. v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 595, 

598 (2015). First, SourceAmerica communicates with the procuring government agency, 

i.e., the federal customer, about its need for a particular service, whether it is for grounds 

maintenance, or IT, or childcare. Then, based on those inputs, SourceAmerica crafts

Opportunity Notices, or Sources Sought Notices (“SSNs”), which communicate to NPAs 

the particular scope and requirements of the service sought. Sometimes those Notices 

include mandatory requirements, such as certain levels of security clearance, or prior 

work history in the specific service industry. Sometimes, they will express preferences 

for NPAs with geographic experience, or other such criteria. After collecting responses

from interested NPAs, SourceAmerica assesses the NPAs’ proposals for their ability to 

perform the service requested, and based off of its appraisal, selects one NPA to 

recommend to the AbilityOne Commission for approval. With rare exceptions, the 

AbilityOne Commission will accept SourceAmerica’s recommendation as the contractor.

The entirety of this process has been interchangeably referred to by the parties as the 

source-selection process, the acquisitions process, the NPA recommendation process, 

among other things.

Bona Fide is an NPA that received a number of AbilityOne projects in the mid to 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 37
4

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

late 2000’s. However, as a result of two bid protests not at issue here, Bona Fide’s 

relationship with SourceAmerica soured in the ensuing years. In 2012, the parties signed 

a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) resolving their bid protest 

disputes. The Settlement Agreement obligated SourceAmerica to “use best efforts to 

provide that Bona Fide is treated objectively, fairly, and equitably in its dealings with 

[SourceAmerica], with specific attention to contract allocation.” (ECF No. 519-4, at 7.) 

Significantly, since the execution of the Settlement Agreement, Bona Fide has 

received no recommendations for contracts from SourceAmerica. In response, Bona Fide 

filed a complaint that SourceAmerica breached its obligations under the Settlement 

Agreement, alleging, inter alia, that SourceAmerica’s source-selection process was 

plagued by conflicts of interests and biases against Bona Fide. SourceAmerica denied 

those allegations and moved for summary judgment on Bona Fide’s summary judgment 

claims. 

As relevant to the motions at hand, SourceAmerica and Bona Fide have proffered 

two dueling expert witnesses—Ms. Wills, and Mr. Jans, respectively—to support their 

theories of the case. Both sides have moved to exclude each other’s witnesses. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

The trial judge must act as the gatekeeper for expert testimony by carefully 

applying Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to ensure specialized evidence is “not only 

relevant, but reliable.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 & n.7 

(1993) (“Daubert I”). The Court’s obligation “to scrutinize carefully the reasoning and 

methodology underlying [expert] affidavits” applies even on summary judgment. Houle 

v. Jubilee Fisheries, Inc., No. C04-2346JLR, 2006 WL 27204, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 5, 

2006) (quoting Daubert I, 509 U.S. at 501)). An expert witness may testify 

if (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the 

trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the 

testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of 

reliable principles and methods; and (d) the witness has reliably applied the 

principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 37
5

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

Fed. R. Evid. 702. The proponent of the evidence bears the burden of proving the 

expert’s testimony satisfies Rule 702. Cooper v. Brown, 510 F.3d 870, 880 (9th Cir. 

2007).

The Court has broad discretion in exercising its gatekeeping function, United 

States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2000), which applies to both scientific 

and non-scientific testimony. Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 

(1999) (applying Daubert to all expert testimony, not just scientific testimony); 

Hangarter v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1017 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Under Rule 702, the Court must assure itself of two things: that “any and all scientific 

testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert I, 509 U.S. at 

589. 

Where, as here, experts are retained to offer non-scientific testimony, the reliability 

inquiry will “depend[] heavily on the knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than 

the methodology or theory behind it.” Hangarter v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 

373 F.3d 998, 1017 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hankey, 203 F.3d at 1169)). It is generally 

said that “[d]isputes as to the strength of [an expert’s] credentials, faults in his use of [a 

particular] methodology, or lack of textual authority for his opinion, go to the weight, not 

the admissibility of his testimony.” Kennedy v. Collagen Corp., 161 F.3d 1226, at 1231 

(9th Cir. 1998) (quoting McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co., 61 F.3d 1038, 1044 (2d Cir. 

1995)). 

The second prong, relevance, focuses on whether the expert testimony “fits” the 

facts of the trial. That is, the testimony must be “relevant to the task at hand” in that it 

“logically advances a material aspect of the proposing party’s case.” Daubert v. Merrell 

Dow Pharms. Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Daubert II”). At bottom, the 

dispositive question for the relevance prong is whether the proposed testimony “will 

assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Daubert 

I, 509 U.S. at 591; Elsayed Mukhtar v. Cal. State. Univ., Hayward, 299 F.3d 1053, 1063 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 37
6

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

n.7 (9th Cir. 2002), amended by 319 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Encompassed in the 

determination of whether expert testimony is relevant is whether it is helpful to the jury, 

which is the ‘central concern’ of Rule 702.”). 

To the extent that an expert purports to offer a legal opinion on an ultimate issue, 

such testimony must be excluded because “offering legal conclusion testimony invades 

the province of the trial judge.” Nationwide v. Kass Info. Sys., Inc., 523 F.3d 1051, 1059 

(9th Cir. 2008); Mukhtar, 299 F.3d at 1066 n.10 (“[A]n expert witness cannot give an 

opinion as to her legal conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law.”). In 

breach of contract cases, the expert may not be allowed to opine on the meaning and 

import of disputed terms. See PMI Mortg. Ins. Co. v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 

291 F. App’x. 40, 41 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (“The expert testimony proffered by 

AISLIC went to the interpretation of the underlying settlement agreement, a contract, an 

ultimate question of law upon which the opinion of an expert may not be given.”). To 

permit any such testimony would be to commit error, as it is well-known that matters of

law are generally “inappropriate subjects for expert testimony.” Aguilar v. Int’l 

Longshoremen’s Union Local No. 10, 966 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 1992). 

As a corollary of this principle, expert conclusions which do not inform the jury 

about the facts but which “merely function like jury instructions,” are impermissible. Lee 

v. First Nat’l Ins. Co., No. CV0906264MMMCWX, 2010 WL 11549637, at *10 n.80 

(C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2010) (quoting Charles A. Wright et al., FED. PRAC. & PROC. EVID. § 

6265.2 (2d ed.)); accord Nationwide, 523 F.3d at 1060. On one level, they are improper 

because they invade the province of the court to instruct the jury as to the law. United 

States v. Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275, 1287 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Resolving doubtful questions 

of law is the distinct and exclusive province of the trial judge.” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). And on another, they do not “help” the jury within the meaning of Rule 702, 

as they “do nothing more for the jury than tell it what verdict to reach.” Lee, 2010 WL 

11549637, at *10. 

III. Motion to Exclude Kevin M. Jans’s Expert Testimony

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 37
7

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

On May 9, 2017, Bona Fide designated Mr. Jans as an expert who may testify on: 

“(a) the likelihood that Bona Fide would have been awarded each of the opportunities 

alleged in Bona Fide’s First Amended Complaint and Supplemental Complaint, but for 

SourceAmerica’s breach of the July 2012 Settlement Agreement;” (“Opinion A”); “(b) 

how the AbilityOne program functions;” (“Opinion B”) and “(c) how SourceAmerica 

abused its role in the AbilityOne program to Bona Fide’s detriment” (“Opinion C”). 

(ECF No. 521-4, at 2 (Sealed).) 

SourceAmerica seeks to exclude Mr. Jans’s testimony as to each of the three above 

opinions (ECF No. 521). For the reasons articulated below, the Court will deny

SourceAmerica’s motion to exclude Mr. Jans’ testimony as to Opinions B and C and 

grant it in part with respect to Opinion A. 

A. Jans’s Opinions on How the AbilityOne Program Functions (Opinion B), 

and How SourceAmerica Abused its Role in the AbilityOne Program to 

Bona Fide’s Detriment (Opinion C)

Mr. Jans dedicates the first substantive section of his expert report to describing his 

understanding of how the AbilityOne Program functions. (ECF No. 535-10 (Sealed).) 

Mr. Jans begins by articulating the “traditional” government procurement process

in terms of the “Acquisition Time Zones,” a conceptual framework he devised. (Id. at 

17–21.) The Acquisition Time Zones charts out the four stages of the government buying 

process, whereby the government first defines its needs, conducts market research to see 

capabilities of potential contractors who might fulfill those needs, requests proposals, and 

ultimately evaluates and selects from proposals submitted by offerors. 

Next, Mr. Jans juxtaposes the traditional procurement process with that conducted 

by SourceAmerica under Ability One. (Id. at 22–31.) According to Mr. Jans, there are a 

few critical factors distinguishing the two. The first lies in SourceAmerica’s relative 

autonomy, from both AbilityOne Commission oversight and from Federal Acquisitions 

Regulation (“FAR”) principles requiring full and open competition in the government’s 

solicitation of contracts. (Id. at 22 (citing FAR. 6.302-5(b)(2) (exempting the AbilityOne 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 37
8

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

Program from the dictates of FAR 6.101, which prescribes “full and open 

competition”))). The second major difference adheres in Mr. Jans’s assessment that, 

although the AbilityOne Commission technically has final say in accepting or rejecting 

any NPA recommendations propounded by SourceAmerica, SourceAmerica is the de 

facto deciding entity. (Id. at 26.) In Mr. Jans’s experience with federal government 

contracting, it is “exceedingly rare for the buying authority [in this case, the AbilityOne 

Commission] to NOT take the recommendation of the evaluation team.” (Id.) 

Mr. Jans recognized that the special features of SourceAmerica’s acquisitions 

process were designed to serve the AbilityOne Program’s goal of creating more jobs for 

the blind and severely handicapped. (Id. at 33.) Dispensing with competitive bidding 

procedures and having relative autonomy to structure each step of the buying process 

would enable the AbilityOne Program to discharge its mission. 

At the same time, the confluence of these unique factors makes SourceAmerica’s 

administration of the AbilityOne Program especially vulnerable to abuse and 

manipulation at every stage of the acquisitions process. Mr. Jans opines that 

SourceAmerica’s “wide latitude to structure the acquisition process . . . [down to] how 

the evaluation criteria in [each Opportunity Notice] are structured, the evaluation of 

proposals from the NPAs, and the ‘recommendation’ of the NPA,” (id. at 32), lends itself 

to easy exploitation by those with conflicts of interest. (Id. at 38.) Those conflicts, he 

asserts, come in three flavors: contracts awarded “1) to [SourceAmerica] itself, 2) to nonprofit NPAs owned by its members of its Board of Directors, and even 3) to NPAs who 

hire SourceAmerica employees after a contract is distributed to them.” (Id. at 42.) 

Concomitant with this vulnerability to conflicts of interest, and perhaps, as a result of it, 

is SourceAmerica’s preference for large NPAs. Mr. Jans’s assessment is that 

SourceAmerica promotes the interest of a group of favored, larger NPAs, to whom it 

awards contracts, and who, as a result of those contracts, become more sophisticated and 

increasingly eligible to take on more and more complex (and lucrative) contracts. (Id. at 

39–41.) 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 37
9

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

According to Mr. Jans, SourceAmerica makes decisions at key points in the 

acquisition process to favor, or disfavor certain NPAs. For example, SourceAmerica is 

alleged to have quietly “structur[ed bidding] requirements to exclude small NPAs, 

including Bona Fide.” (Id. at 32.) Exclusionary practices manifest in a number of ways. 

Sometimes, SourceAmerica would elect to bundle multiple service requests together 

under one larger Opportunity rather than segregate them out into smaller, separate 

Opportunities more likely to be won by smaller NPAs. Other times, SourceAmerica 

would require NPAs to have expensive certifications not required or mandated by the 

federal customer. Other times yet, SourceAmerica is accused to have made ex post facto 

changes to contract requirements after Sources Sought Notices had already been issued to 

the public, changes which benefited a favored NPA over another. 

SourceAmerica challenges the above testimony on only one ground: Mr. Jans’s

lack of qualifications to opine specifically on the AbilityOne Program. (See 521-1, at 14–

16.) SourceAmerica asserts that Mr. Jans had no experience with the AbilityOne 

Program prior to his retention as an expert, and that he had spent an inadequate amount of 

time (20 to 30 hours) familiarizing himself with the particularities thereof. (Id. at 15.) 

The Court cannot agree that Mr. Jans’s opinions are made without “knowledge, 

skill, experience, training, or education,” as SourceAmerica alleges. Jinro Am., Inc. v. 

Secure Invs., Inc., 266 F.3d 993, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). Mr. Jans has worked in the field 

of government contracting for 22 years, and spent 15 of those years at the Department of 

Defense in various roles including Contract Specialist, Contracting Officer, and 

Procurement Analyst. (ECF No. 558-28, at 2–4.) In those positions, Mr. Jans supported, 

managed, led, reviewed, and advised on high dollar-value government contracts relating 

to a wide variety of goods and services, including those attached to base operations, 

facilities management, software development, logistics, and more. (Id. at 5–6.) Mr. 

Jans’s work at the DoD required him to develop acquisition strategies and management 

processes, to operate pursuant to the applicable federal regulations and rules, and, at one 

point, to contribute to drafting a section of the FAR pertaining to conflicts of interest. 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 37
10

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

(Id. at 12–13.) While at the DoD, Mr. Jans earned a Masters of Arts degree in Human 

Resources Development from Webster University, in addition to other credentials from 

various contract management training programs. (Id. at 23–26, 27–29.) Mr. Jans’s

knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education in the general field of federal 

government acquisitions is demonstrable.

Moreover, that Mr. Jans had no previous experience with the AbilityOne Program 

does not detract from his qualifications to testify to how the program functions. 

SourceAmerica relies on George v. Morgan Const. Co., 389 F. Supp. 253, 259 (E.D. Pa. 

1975), to argue that Mr. Jans must “show special knowledge of the very question upon 

which he is to express an opinion,” knowledge which it contends Mr. Jans does not 

possess with respect to the AbilityOne Program. However, Rule 702 “contemplates a 

broad conception of expert qualifications.” Thomas v. Newton Int’l Enters., 42 F.3d 

1266, 1269 (9th Cir. 1994). In that regard, so long as the expert’s testimony remains 

“within the reasonable confines of his subject area,” it is admissible. Avila v. Willits 

Envt’l. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 839 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ralston v. Smith & 

Nephew Richards, Inc., 275 F.3d 965, 969–70 (10th Cir. 2001). A lack of specialization 

as to the AbilityOne acquisitions process goes to the weight of Mr. Jans’s testimony, not 

to its admissibility. See Karmelich v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana S.A. de C.V., 

114 F.3d 1194, 1997 WL 289476, at *1 (Table) (9th Cir. 1997) (holding expert’s general 

knowledge of cargo vessel design qualified him to testify to the standard of care for 

longshoremen working on deck because “any lack of particularized expertise would go 

only to the weight of his testimony”) (citing United States v. Garcia, 7 F.3d 885, 890 (9th 

Cir. 1993)). 

Nor does Dickman v. Alvarado Hosp. Med. Ctr., Inc., a case offered by Source 

America, persuade the Court otherwise. No. 02CV2371-BEN (WMc), 2006 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 83626 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2006). There, the district court precluded an expert 

with plastic surgery expertise from offering testimony on the subject of urology. Its 

rationale was two-fold: first, the court noted that the expert had been the subject of 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 37
11

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

twenty-six malpractice actions and had his medical license revoked for gross negligence. 

Id. at 11. Second, the court held that “specialized knowledge on training on some other 

issue,” i.e., as to sex change operations and plastic surgery, “did not render him an expert 

on the issues before the Court.” Id. at 12. 

Dickman is entirely inapposite to the case at hand: the distance between federal 

acquisitions under FAR and federal acquisitions under AbilityOne is hardly comparable 

to the distance between cosmetology and urology. Here, Mr. Jans relied on his 

qualifications in the field of government acquisitions under FAR to deliver testimony on 

a closely-related matter—acquisitions under AbilityOne. Moreover, he researched 

AbilityOne by perusing both publicly-available materials and documents made available

during the course of this litigation, consulting “a former contracting officer” with 

experience as to AbilityOne, and reviewing statements made by Ms. Jean Robinson, 

SourceAmerica’s then-General Counsel, about how SourceAmerica conducts its sourceselection process. (ECF No. 535-10, at 15–16.) Although it is a fair question whether 20

to 30 hours dedicated to studying AbilityOne is sufficient, the answer to that question 

goes to weight, not admissibility. 

SourceAmerica’s challenge as to Mr. Jans’s qualifications are unavailing. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny its motion to exclude Mr. Jans’s testimony as to the 

AbilityOne Program (Opinion B), and how SourceAmerica utilized its role in AbilityOne

(Opinion C). 

B. Opinion on the likelihood that Bona Fide would have been awarded each of 

the opportunities alleged in Bona Fide’s First Amended Complaint and 

Supplemental Complaint (Opinion A)

The remainder of Mr. Jans’s expert report focuses on the relationship between 

SourceAmerica’s conduct and the harm alleged by Bona Fide (Opinion A). Mr. Jans

states that SourceAmerica “did not provide that Bona Fide was treated objectively, fairly 

and/or equitably in the allocation of the contracts reviewed for this report, as promised in 

the 2012 Settlement Agreement,” and that, “but for SourceAmerica’s [inequitable 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 37
12

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

actions], it was reasonably probable that Bona Fide would have been allocated the 

contract [sic] resulting from the [Opportunity Notices discussed] in this report.” (ECF 

No. 535-10, at 47.) 

At issue is the latter half of Mr. Jans’s opinion which pertains to causation. 

SourceAmerica objects that Mr. Jans’s ultimate conclusion—that Bona Fide was 

reasonably likely to have won the contested contracts, “but for” SourceAmerica’s unfair 

and inequitable conduct—is the product of faulty and unreliable methodology. (See ECF 

No. 521-1, at 17.)

Specifically, SourceAmerica faults Mr. Jans for not performing “a comparative 

analysis of the NPA responses submitted to SourceAmerica.” (ECF No. 521-1, at 17.)

SourceAmerica’s position is that Mr. Jans cannot possibly claim that Bona Fide was 

reasonably likely to have prevailed on its bids if he did not juxtapose Bona Fide’s 

qualifications against those of the other NPAs that also submitted bids. SourceAmerica 

points out that there were anywhere between three to nine other NPA proposals submitted 

for each Opportunity at issue. Without a comparative analysis of the relative capabilities 

of the competing NPAs, “it is pure speculation for [Mr. Jans] to conclude that Bona Fide 

was reasonably certain to have obtained any of the Opportunities at issue, much less all of 

the Opportunities.” (Id.) 

Under controlling caselaw, the Court need not admit an expert opinion that is 

connected to the underlying data “only by the ipse dixit of the expert.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. 

Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). It is, in fact, incumbent on the Court to exclude such 

testimony if it determines that “there is simply too great an analytical gap between the 

data and the opinion proffered.” Id.; see also Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1319 (“The trial 

court’s gate-keeping function requires more than simply taking the expert’s word for it.”). 

Here, the Court finds that there is no analysis or factual data contained in Mr. 

Jans’s proffered testimony to support his conclusion that “it was reasonably probable” 

that Bona Fide would have prevailed on all of the disputed Opportunity Notices. Despite 

his designation as an expert on causation, the vast majority of Mr. Jans’s assessment is

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 37
13

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

geared toward the issue of breach—i.e., were there ways in which SourceAmerica acted 

unfairly in structuring and administering AbilityOne Opportunities with respect to Bona 

Fide. In contrast, there is no discussion as to how those breaches relate to Bona Fide’s 

loss of contracts besides Mr. Jans’s ipse dixit. 

To be admissible, Mr. Jans’s but-for causation conclusion has to have some factual

support. Whether or not Mr. Jans conducted the comparative analysis urged by 

SourceAmerica, he should have—at a minimum—analyzed whether Bona Fide satisfied

the legitimate Opportunity requirements which were not tainted by SourceAmerica’s 

unfairly-added assessment criteria. To wit, he could have attempted to identify which 

certification requirements were borne out of conflicts of interest, and to demonstrate that, 

with those improper requirements removed, that Bona Fide was reasonably likely to 

prevail because it met all of the other applicable Opportunity specifications. And with 

respect to those Opportunities for which SourceAmerica stands accused of improperly 

bundling together, Mr. Jans might have attempted to show Bona Fide’s capacity to satisfy 

all the requirements applicable to one of the smaller, partial contracts. 

Mr. Jans’s analysis, however, does none of these things; instead, it focuses 

exclusively on the wrongs perpetrated by SourceAmerica. But simply pointing out

SourceAmerica’s wrongful actions—i.e., its breaches—does not furnish any factual basis

for Mr. Jans’s conclusion that Bona Fide was otherwise qualified or likely to win the 

disputed contracts as a matter of causation. Put differently: without evaluating Bona 

Fide’s affirmative qualifications or pointing to any facts indicating Bona Fide’s 

compliance with legitimate assessment criteria, how can Mr. Jans conclude that it was 

“reasonably probable” that Bona Fide would have prevailed on any of the disputed 

Opportunities, much less all of them? 

By leaving the gatekeeper to guess how his conclusions are derived from any of 

the data before him, Mr. Jans’s proffered testimony falls woefully short of the Rule 702 

threshold. See, e.g., Townsend v. Monster Beverage Corp., 303 F. Supp. 3d 1010, 1032 

(C.D. Cal. 2018) (excluding an expert opinion because “[p]laintiffs do not explain how 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 37
14

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

[their expert’s] ‘observation’ is in any way derived from his survey and there is no such 

connection apparent to the Court”). This conclusion shall be excluded. 

IV. SourceAmerica’s motion to strike Mr. Jans’s Declarations

SourceAmerica has also moved to strike portions of two declarations by Mr. Jans. 

(ECF No. 575). The declarations in question were submitted in support of Bona Fide’s 

opposition to SourceAmerica’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 551-1 “MSJ 

Declaration”)) and Bona Fide’s opposition to SourceAmerica’s motion to exclude Mr. 

Jan’s testimony. (ECF No. 546-1 “Expert Testimony Declaration”)). The declarations 

are largely identical and run approximately 37 pages. SourceAmerica argues that Mr. 

Jans’s declarations were untimely, improper supplementations under Rule 26(e) that 

should be stricken pursuant to Rule 37. It further contends that Mr. Jans impermissibly 

attempts to offer an interpretation of the Settlement Agreement. 

1. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) allows parties to supplement an initial 

expert disclosure “in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the 

disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective 

information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery 

process or in writing.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(e)(1). 

However, to be proper, Rule 26(e) supplementations must be limited in scope. 

“Rule 26(e) creates a ‘duty to supplement,’ not a right,” Luke v. Family Care & Urgent 

Med. Clinics, 323 F. App’x 496, 500 (9th Cir. 2009), and does not permit the “parties to 

add information that should have been provided in the initial disclosure.” Arizona Oil 

Holdings LLC v. BP W. Coast Prod. LLC, No. CV-14-00569-PHX-GMS, 2015 WL 

13567347, at *1–2 (D. Ariz. May 29, 2015). For example, courts have rejected 

supplemental expert reports that: (1) “were significantly different” from the expert’s 

original report and effectively altered the expert’s theories; or (2) attempted to “deepen” 

and “strengthen” the expert’s prior reports. Copper Sands Homeowners Ass’n v. Copper 

Sands Realty, LLC, 2013 WL 2460349, at *2 (D. Nev. June 5, 2013). Courts must be 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 37
15

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

vigilant that Rule 26(e) does not “create a loophole through which a party who submits 

partial expert witness disclosures can add to them to its advantage after the court’s 

deadline for doing so has passed.” Munchkin, Inc. v. Playtex Prod., LLC, 600 F. App’x 

537, 538 (9th Cir. 2015), as amended (July 31, 2015); see also Luke, 323 F. App’x at 500. 

2. Analysis

SourceAmerica’s challenge to Mr. Jans’s declarations fall into three categories. 

The Court will address them in turn. 

a. Expansion on the Acquisition Time Zones 

SourceAmerica seeks to strike Mr. Jans’s explanation of how his theory of the 

Acquisition Time Zones applies to this case. The sections at issue are located at 

Paragraphs 48–74 of the MSJ Declaration, and Paragraphs 48–76 of the Expert 

Testimony Report. 

As explained supra, the Acquisition Time Zones are a four-part schematic Mr. Jans 

devised to explain the typical stages of government acquisitions. Mr. Jans relies on the 

Acquisition Time Zones in his declarations to rebut SourceAmerica’s critique of his 

failure to conduct a comparative analysis of NPA responses and how they fulfilled the 

stated Opportunity criteria. 

In his declarations, Mr. Jans explains how SourceAmerica’s tight control over 

acquisition strategy and Opportunity design in Zones 1 and 2 (which refer to ascertaining 

client requirements, contract formulation, and establishing selection criteria, labeled the 

“Requirement Zone” and “Market Research Zone,” respectively), allowed it to 

promulgate Opportunity Notices containing unfair or inappropriate evaluative criteria in 

Zone 3 (“Request for Proposal Zone”), which in turn enabled it to assign Opportunities to 

whichever NPA it chose in Zone 4 (“Source Selection Zone”). According to Mr. Jans, 

given SourceAmerica’s control over the early Acquisition Time Zones, it would not make 

sense for Mr. Jans to perform a comparative analysis, since any source-selection criteria 

used to assign the Opportunity in Zone 4 would have been structured and manipulated by 

SourceAmerica in the earlier zones to favor certain NPAs over others. “Looking only at 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 37
16

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

Zone 4,” (i.e., the ultimate selection of an NPA based on an evaluation of its ability to 

meet the Opportunity specifications) “actually obscures the fact that the evaluation 

reports are in large part a result of what Source America did or did not do in zones 1, 2, 

and 3.” (ECF No. 558-28, at 34 (Sealed)). “Such a narrow approach ignores all the 

decisions in the other three zones.” (Id. at 35.)

SourceAmerica seeks to strike this aspect of Mr. Jans’s declarations as an untimely 

attempt to register additional opinions past the Court’s deadline for expert disclosures. 

SourceAmerica contends that the Acquisition Time Zones were but a marginal part of

Mr. Jans’s expert report, and that the marquee role they took in Mr. Jans’s declarations 

transformed his opinion to a wholly new opinion. SourceAmerica contends that Mr. Jans 

devoted no more than two pages of his expert report to the Acquisition Time Zones, and 

now, they are “suddenly front and center as his unifying theory” in the declarations. 

(ECF No. 575, at 10.) 

In response, Bona Fide argues that Mr. Jans’s reliance on the Acquisition Time 

Zones framework is replete throughout Mr. Jans’s original report and that his declarations 

were offered in response to SourceAmerica’s criticism of his methodology. (ECF No. 

585, at 4–5.) Thus, according to Bona Fide, any invocation of the Acquisition Time 

Zones in the declaration were not supplementations because they were previously 

disclosed in the expert report. 

The Court first agrees with Bona Fide that Mr. Jans’s discussions of the 

Acquisition Time Zones in his declarations do not amount to new opinions. Contrary to 

SourceAmerica’s contentions, Mr. Jans had in fact incorporated his theory of Time 

Acquisition Zones throughout his expert report. While he did not always refer to the 

Time Acquisition Zones by name, it is clear that the foundation of Mr. Jans’s expert 

report was predicated on the Time Acquisition Zones framework. At the outset of his 

report, Mr. Jans explains that “the focus of this report is the allocation of contracts that 

happens in Acquisition Time Zones.” (ECF No. 535-10, at 20.) He keeps his promise by 

making reference the different stages of the source-selection process throughout his 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 37
17

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

report. For example, under Trend 1 of his expert report, in which he discusses 

SourceAmerica’s “[i]nfluence (and control) of entire acquisition process,” he identifies 

how the four stages of the Acquisition Time Zones cohered with the way that 

SourceAmerica itself marketed its operational procedures. (Id. at 32–33.) In that 

discussion, Mr. Jans identifies how with respect to the Requirements Zone (Zone 1), 

SourceAmerica would “[c]ollaborate with its subject matter experts to build the 

Performance Work Statement,” how it “[c]onducted Market research and coordinat[ed] 

site visits” in the Market Research Zone (Zone 2), “[a]dvert[ised] the RFP (as a SSN)” 

within the Request for Proposal Zone (Zone 3), and “[e]valuated offers, negotiat[ed] and 

determin[ed] responsive NPA and start up assistance” in the Source Selection Zone (Zone 

4). Furthermore, Mr. Jans analyzed at least several of the Opportunities at issue 

explicitly through the lens of SourceAmerica’s conduct at each stage of the Acquisition 

Time Zones. (See id. at 50 (SSN 1690/1741); id. at 56 (RFI 1953/SSN 2075).)

With respect to the Acquisition Time Zones, the Court holds that Mr. Jans’s 

declarations do not impermissibly expand beyond what was already inherent and 

contained in his expert reports. Having compared the declarations to the original report, 

the Court is satisfied that Mr. Jans’s declarations do not present new theories or new 

evidence. As discussed supra, Mr. Jans had timely disclosed in his expert report the 

Acquisition Time Zones framework and his intent to rely on that schematic to explain 

SourceAmerica’s control over every aspect of the AbilityOne acquisitions process. His 

expert report contained much more than mere passing reference to the Acquisition Time 

Zones. The Acquisition Time Zones were as much woven into the fabric of his expert 

report as they were in his declarations—the only difference is that he referred to them 

more frequently by name in the latter. 

Where, as here, the “declarations contain no new material information and present 

no opinions that were not provided to [the opposing party] during the course of 

discovery,” there has been no violation of Rule 26(e) and no basis to strike. Bryant v. 

Wyeth, No. C04-1706 TSZ, 2012 WL 11924298, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 19, 2012). As 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 37
18

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

Bona Fide points out, “there is no requirement that [Rule 26] disclosures cover any and 

every objection or criticism of which an opposing party to complain,” and consequently, 

its expert “need not stand mute in response to an opposing party’s Daubert motion” and 

summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 585, at 4 (quoting Star Ins. Co. v. Iron Horse 

Tools, Inc., No. 1:16cv48-SPW-TJC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45660, at *17 (D. Mont. 

Feb. 7, 2018).) That is true especially where, as here, Mr. Jans’s declarations do not alter 

any of his theories, Copper Sands, 2013 WL 2460349, at *2, and instead “merely expand 

upon or clarify initial opinions that the [opposing party] had an opportunity to test during 

discovery.” Wilson Road Dev. Corp. v. Fronabarger Concreters Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 

896, 903 (E.D. Mo. 2013). 

In short, the Court finds Paragraphs 48–74 of the Expert Testimony Declaration 

and Paragraphs 48–76 of the MSJ Declaration to be permissible. Those paragraphs will 

not be stricken. To the extent that SourceAmerica has raised Daubert concerns about the 

Acquisition Time Zones for the first time in its motion to strike, those challenges are 

denied as having been waived. (ECF No. 575, at 13–17.) 2 Given that the Acquisition 

Time Zones were disclosed pursuant to Mr. Jans’s initial expert report, any objections 

thereto should have been mounted with SourceAmerica’s motion to exclude his 

testimony.

b. Correction of Deposition Testimony

The second basis for SourceAmerica’s motion to strike lies in Paragraphs 75–80 of 

the Expert Testimony Declaration and Paragraphs 77–82 of the MSJ Declaration. Those

paragraphs provide background for the errata sheet Mr. Jans submitted to correct an error 

in his deposition testimony. (ECF No. 558-28, at 167.) At his June 14, 2018 deposition, 

Mr. Jans was asked “Though you did not review the responses of the eight responding 

 

2

In any event, the Court is not concerned by SourceAmerica’s arguments that the Acquisition 

Time Zones are not reliable and not peer-reviewed. The Acquisition Time Zones are a conceptual 

framework, not a test or methodology or technique subject to scientific testing. Moreover, the 

Acquisition Time Zones adequately fits the particular facts of this case, and will advance the jury’s 

understanding of the issues. 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 37
19

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

NPAs for opportunity 1483, you, nevertheless, concluded that Bona Fide was the most 

qualified for opportunity 1483; is that correct?” After Bona Fide’s attorney lodged an 

objection, Mr. Jans responded, “Yes.” (ECF No. 558-28, at 167 (Sealed).) The errata 

sheet indicates that the transcript should be corrected so that “Yes,” is replaced by “I did 

not reach that conclusion.” (ECF No. 558-28, at 167.)

Mr. Jans’s declarations expand on the reason for correction provided in the errata; 

namely that he had been confused by the question posed by SourceAmerica’s counsel, 

and that he had never meant to imply, based off of his response, that he believed that 

SourceAmerica had been in the business of making its source-selection decisions 

according to an objective, “best qualified” NPA standard. (ECF No. 558-28, at 35; id. at 

167.) Mr. Jans states that he had not meant to agree with the substance of the question, 

and that his answer “yes,” should be construed as a misunderstanding of the question 

posed, especially since he had, prior to that point, consistently opined that 

SourceAmerica selected NPAs based on its own subjective, biased criteria. (ECF No. 

558-28, at 36.) SourceAmerica contends that Mr. Jans’s original deposition testimony 

should stand as a concession that it was in fact recommending only the best qualified 

NPA, and that the errata and explanation thereof should be stricken as a new,

impermissible departure from that concession. 

The Court agrees that the contended statements need not be stricken. Pursuant to

Rule 30(e)(1)(B), Mr. Jans was entitled to make corrections to his deposition transcript so 

long as he “sign[ed] a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them.” 

FED. R. CIV. P. 30(e)(1)(B). Mr. Jans’s timely errata sheet accomplished such a purpose. 

The Ninth Circuit has approved of supplementations in similar circumstances: “the nonmoving party is not precluded from elaborating upon, explaining, or clarifying prior 

testimony elicited by opposing counsel on deposition [or] minor inconsistencies that 

result from an honest mistake.” Messick v. Horizon Indus., 62 F.3d 1227, 1231 (9th Cir. 

1995). Because the paragraphs of the declarations at issue served only to further explain 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 37
20

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

the circumstances giving rise to the errata, and because there was no dramatic change in 

opinions expressed, the Court finds no Rule 26 violations. 

There are no grounds for granting this part of SourceAmerica’s motion to strike.

c. Interpretation of the Settlement Agreement

Bona Fide has also moved to strike Paragraph 79 of the Expert Testimony 

Declaration and Paragraph 81 of the MSJ Declaration. In that paragraph, Mr. Jans 

provided the opinion that “SourceAmerica’s ‘best efforts’ under the Settlement 

Agreement could have included singling out Bona Fide as a NPA that is new to the 

program or have been affiliated for some time but are actively pursuing AbilityOne 

contracts.” 

The Court agrees that this passage must be stricken because it offers to interpret a 

legal contract. “[E]xpert testimony [regarding] the interpretation of a contract [is] an 

ultimate question of law upon which the opinion of an expert may not be given.” 

Hornish v. King Cty., 182 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 1133–34 (W.D. Wash. 2016) (quoting PMI 

Mortgage Ins. Co. v. Amer. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 291 F. App’x. 40, 41 (9th Cir. 

2008) (unpublished)). Mr. Jans is not specially trained in law, and cannot be permitted to 

give any insight as to what obligations, rights, and duties flow from the Settlement 

Agreement. 

SourceAmerica also objects to portions of Mr. Jans’s supplemental expert report 

and deposition answers for engaging in a similar attempt to construe the Settlement 

Agreement. At issue are comments made by Mr. Jans registering his belief that the 

Settlement Agreement obligated SourceAmerica to tailor opportunities to suit Bona 

Fide’s specifications and conferred upon Bona Fide a right to preferential treatment, over 

and above any other NPA which did not have such a contract with SourceAmerica. 

Although SourceAmerica should have raised these issues as part of the Daubert motion, 

the Court will overlook the dilatory nature of these objections because the testimony they 

challenge is clearly impermissible. As detailed more closely in the Court’s summary 

judgment order, Mr. Jans’s contract interpretation is incorrect. For that reason, and 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 37
21

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

because Mr. Jans cannot is not qualified to render legal opinions, these opinions will be 

excluded. See Nationwide, 523 F.3d at 1059 (quotation marks and citation omitted) 

(affirming exclusion of expert legal testimony because it not only invaded the province of 

the trial judge, but also constituted erroneous statements of law, and permitting it “would 

have been not only superfluous but mischievous.”).

V. Motion to Exclude Mary Karen Wills’s Expert Testimony

Also pending before the Court is Bona Fide’s motion to exclude the expert 

testimony of Mary Karen Wills. (ECF No. 561.) Ms. Wills has been a CPA for 30 years 

and serves as the leader of the Government Contracts Practice at the Berkeley Research 

Group, LLC. (ECF No. 541, at 6 (Sealed).) SourceAmerica retained Ms. Wills to offer 

opinions on the regulatory regime governing SourceAmerica’s selection process, 

primarily to rebut Bona Fide’s claim that SourceAmerica selected its favored NPAs 

without regard to fair evaluative procedures when reviewing NPA responses. Ms. Wills

has an extensive experience in federal government procurement laws and regulations. 

(Id.) She has previously worked with the AbilityOne Program in her capacity as a 

consultant to a CNA, and to a prime contractor working with an NPA. (Id.) 

Ms. Wills completed her expert report on January 19, 2018, and submitted a 

rebuttal report to Mr. Jans’s expert report on March 16, 2018. In those documents, and in 

her depositions, Ms. Wills has indicated that her testimony will include the following 

opinions: that SourceAmerica’s obligations under the Settlement Agreement were 

coterminous with its obligations to follow applicable federal regulations in designing and 

assigning AbilityOne Opportunities, and that SourceAmerica complied with both in its 

source-selection process with respect to the Opportunities at issue (Opinion 1); that 

SourceAmerica did not violate any federal conflict of interest policy in assigning the 

same (Opinion 2); that Bona Fide failed to exhaust available avenues to appeal 

SourceAmerica’s NPA recommendations (Opinion 3); that Bona Fide’s Amended and 

Supplemental Complaints contain false, misleading and inaccurate allegations (Opinion 

4); and that the opinion of Bona Fide’s expert, Mr. Jans, is not reliable (Opinion 5). 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

 37
22

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

Bona Fide objects to these opinions and moves to exclude Ms. Wills’s testimony in 

full. It argues that Ms. Wills purports to offer improper legal conclusions, that there is 

too great an analytical gap between the facts and her opinions, that parts of her opinions 

require no specialized knowledge, and that her opinions would confuse the jury. Bona 

Fide also urges the Court to apply exclusion sanctions under Rule 37 because Ms. Wills 

did not timely disclose all of the documents she considered in drafting her expert reports, 

and because she destroyed all of the notes and working papers she authored in the case. 

SourceAmerica defends its expert on the grounds that legal opinions are appropriate in 

cases involving complex regulatory frameworks, that Ms. Wills’s expertise would be 

helpful in guiding the factfinder through labyrinthian regulatory standards, and that any 

nondisclosure by Ms. Wills was harmless.

A. Opinion 1: Testimony as to legal issues, contract interpretation, 

regulatory and statutory regimes, and regulatory compliance

Ms. Wills is prepared to opine that SourceAmerica did not breach its contractual 

obligations under the Settlement Agreement vis-à-vis the Opportunities in dispute. As 

Bona Fide points out, her ultimate conclusion on the matter is derived from a series of 

constituent opinions. Those opinions are that SourceAmerica’s duties to treat Bona Fide 

fairly, equitably, and objectively under the Settlement Agreement are the same as its 

ordinary duties under the governing statute (FAR) and regulations (AbilityOne-specific), 

that SourceAmerica adequately distilled the essence of those statutes and regulations into 

its own internal policies, and that, by following its own internal policies when conducting 

the source-selection process for the disputed Opportunities, SourceAmerica not only 

complied with the applicable statutory and regulatory demands, but also the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement. 

Bona Fide’s primary objection is that Ms. Wills purports to offer an opinion on an 

ultimate issue of law—i.e., that SourceAmerica did not breach the Settlement Agreement. 

Bona Fide claims that Ms. Wills not only attempts to interpret the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement, but also impermissibly equates its terms with requirements in the Federal 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 22 of

 37
23

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

Acquisition Regulations, AbilityOne Commission Policies, and internal SourceAmerica 

policies. Bona Fide believes that it is a legal opinion for Ms. Wills to testify that 

SourceAmerica’s source-selection process was compliant with regulatory requirements. 

It further contends that the perniciousness of such an opinion is magnified, where, as 

here, the expert would testify that compliance with internal SourceAmerica policy and 

regulations is compliance with the Settlement Agreement. 

In response, SourceAmerica retorts that it would welcome a limiting instruction 

that Ms. Wills cannot opine on whether SourceAmerica breached the Settlement 

Agreement. It frames Ms. Wills’ testimony as providing only “the general regulatory 

requirements and procedures of the AbilityOne Program and SourceAmerica’s 

compliance therewith,” (ECF No. 550, at 7), and as “set[ting] forth necessary background 

information regarding the regulatory framework as an alternative explanation for 

SourceAmerica’s decision-making that Bona Fide contends was ad hoc and 

standardless.” (Id. at 13.) SourceAmerica further contends that even though Ms. Wills 

would testify that SourceAmerica’s internal source-selection policies are compliant with 

the applicable AbilityOne Program regulatory requirements, such an opinion would not 

be problematic because regulatory compliance is “not the ultimate issue in this case,” 

since the crux of the litigation is “whether SourceAmerica breached the Settlement 

Agreement under Virginia law.” (Id. at 14.) 

1. Permissible testimony: Ms. Wills may testify as to the general regulatory 

framework

Bona Fide is correct that “‘matters of law’ are generally inappropriate subjects for 

expert testimony.” Flores v. Arizona, 516 F.3d 1140, 1166 (9th Cir. 2007), rev’d on 

other grounds sub nom. Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009). This is especially true 

when an expert witness purports to offer “an opinion as to her legal conclusion, i.e., an 

opinion on an ultimate issue of law.” Nationwide, 523 F.3d at 1058 (citation and 

quotation marks omitted). Case law states in no uncertain terms that experts are 

forbidden from testifying to an ultimate legal conclusion. See, e.g., Andrews v. MetroCase 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 23 of

 37
24

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

North Commuter R. Co., 882 F.2d 705, 708–09 (2d Cir. 1989) (expert in a negligence 

action may not testify that a defendant railroad company was “negligent”). And with 

respect to contract interpretation, the law is clear that “testimony cannot be used to 

provide legal meaning or interpret [a contract] as written.” McHugh v. United Serv. Auto. 

Assoc., 164 F.3d 451, 454 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). 

The Ninth Circuit recognizes a limited exception to the prohibition on legal 

opinion testimony for “instances in rare, highly complex and technical matters where a 

trial judge, utilizing limited and controlled mechanisms, and as a matter of trial 

management, permits some testimony seemingly at variance with the general rule.” 

Flores, 516 F.3d at 1166 (quoting Nieves-Villanueva v. Soto-Rivera, 133 F.3d 92, 101 

(1st Cir. 1997). Pursuant to this exception, courts have at times allowed experts to 

explain the relevant regulatory backdrop of the litigation. The exception is warranted

where the Court believes the jury might find the applicable regulatory background 

complex and confusing. See, e.g., United States v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co, No. 14-CR00175-THE, 2016 WL 3268994, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2016) (permitting expert 

testimony as to regulations attendant to the Pipeline Safety Act because “expert testimony 

to help the jury digest this complex regulatory framework is necessary and warranted”). 

As the parties’ extensive briefing on the issue suggests, the applicable regulatory 

framework is complex. Ms. Wills may therefore be permitted to offer expert testimony 

as to the general standards, criteria, and regulations to be observed by SourceAmerica in 

designing and assigning Opportunities. Indeed, the regulatory scheme implicated in this 

matter is certainly at least as complicated as the education law and policy framework 

presented in Flores, and the fact-finder would likely be benefited by an explanation of the 

applicable standards. Testimony from Ms. Wills describing the existence of those 

regulations, and the internal policies and procedures developed by SourceAmerica in an 

attempt to effectuate them, would be elucidating. 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 24 of

 37
25

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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. Impermissible Testimony: legal analysis, application of statutes, 

regulations, and internal procedures to SourceAmerica’s allocation of the 

Opportunities at issue. 

However, a large amount of Ms. Wills’ preferred testimony sweeps beyond mere 

background and generalized testimony about the relevant regulatory framework. Indeed, 

she purports to opine that SourceAmerica complied with statutory, regulatory, and 

internal requirements in allocating the specific Opportunities at dispute in this case, and 

that compliance therewith meant compliance with the Settlement Agreement. That is all 

impermissible testimony. See CFM Commc’ns, LLC v. Mitts Telecasting Co., 424 F. 

Supp. 2d 1229, 1233-34 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (“While expert testimony may be permissible to 

describe a complicated agency process, such testimony should not prescribe legal 

standards to apply to the facts of the case.”). The impermissible opinions fall into three 

categories. 

a. Ms. Wills may not interpret the Settlement Agreement or 

opine that its terms are equivalent to federal regulations and 

AbilityOne Commission policies

Like Mr. Jans, Ms. Wills has offered her own interpretation of the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement. For example, she states the following in her expert report: 

In my opinion, it is evident from the record underlying each of the 

opportunities cited in Bona Fide’s allegations that SourceAmerica has fully 

adhered to not only the requirements placed upon it by the AbilityOne 

Program, but also the requirements contained in the Settlement Agreement, 

which emphasizes the same requirements as those contained in the AbilityOne 

regulations and policies.

. . . 

Based on the documentation I reviewed, it is evident that SourceAmerica 

compiled with the terms of the Settlement Agreement in making continuous 

efforts to provide Bona Fide equal access to its services. 

(ECF No. 541-1, at 38, 40 (Sealed).) Ms. Wills may not testify to these opinions because 

experts cannot interpret the terms of a contract or provide legal meaning, especially 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 25 of

 37
26

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

where, as here, the interpretation would go to the ultimate issue—i.e., whether 

SourceAmerica’s actions put it in breach of the 2012 Settlement Agreement. McHugh, 

164 F.3d at 454. This rule also precludes Ms. Wills from purporting to conclude that the 

terms of the 2012 Settlement Agreement were coterminous with the obligations set out 

under FAR or AbilityOne Commission policy. Not only is such an opinion an oblique 

attempt to interpret the contract, but it is also a purely legal opinion, for which Ms. Wills 

has no authority to issue. 

b. Ms. Wills may not testify that there is no daylight between 

the applicable regulations and internal SourceAmerica 

policies and procedures

Similarly, the Court will not permit Ms. Wills to opine on the equivalency of 

SourceAmerica’s internal evaluative procedures and policies and those inscribed in 

federal regulations. 

To show that SourceAmerica followed principled procedures in making its contract 

assignment decisions, Ms. Wills draws a series of connections between internal

SourceAmerica policies on the one hand and federal regulations on the other. Ms. Wills 

states that SouceAmerica must abide by regulations published at FAR 8.7, 41 CFR Part

51, and by the AbilityOne Commission. Those regulations establish the guidelines, 

evaluative criteria, and principles applicable to making source-selection decisions. Ms. 

Wills states that SouceAmerica has incorporated all of those regulations into its internal 

policies, such that compliance with internal SourceAmerica policy means regulatory 

compliance. (ECF No. 541, at 19–21 (Sealed).) Ms. Wills also opines that 

SourceAmerica’s conflict of interest policies are the same as those contained in federal 

regulations. (Id. at 25 (“I reviewed each of the above identified [internal SourceAmerica 

policies] and determined that they appropriately address the requirements of the relevant 

FAR, 41 CFR 51, and the AbilityOne Commission regulations and policies, including 

51.301.”))

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 26 of

 37
27

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

The Court will not permit such testimony. Whether SourceAmerica’s internal 

policies and procedures embody the same standards as those in federal regulations is a 

purely legal issue that SourceAmerica is welcome to argue in motions before the Court. 

It is not, however, an appropriate subject for expert testimony. Moreover, such testimony 

lies outside of Ms. Wills’s expertise as a CPA. Courts are not in the business of allowing 

experts to opine on whether documents in litigation, such as SourceAmerica’s internal 

policies, meet federal regulatory standards. See, e.g., Stobie Creek Investments LLC v. 

U.S., 608 F.3d 1366, 1383–84 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (affirming exclusion of expert that 

“sought to testify about whether [a] tax opinion letter met the standards of Treasury

Circular 230”). 

c. Ms. Wills may not testify that SourceAmerica complied with 

FAR, AbilityOne Commission policies, or SourceAmerica 

internal policies and procedures in designing and assigning 

the Opportunities challenged by Bona Fide

It is also clear to the Court that Ms. Wills may not be permitted to testify that 

SourceAmerica complied with FAR, AbilityOne Commission Policies, or internal 

SourceAmerica procedures with respect to the Opportunities challenged by Bona Fide. 

Those opinions are impermissible because they provide a legal conclusion about an 

ultimate issue, Mukhtar, 299 F.3d at 1066 n.10 (“[A]n expert witness cannot give an 

opinion as to her legal conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law”), and do

no little more for a finder of fact “than tell it what verdict to reach.” 29 Wright & Gold, 

FED. PRAC. & PROC: EVIDENCE § 6264 (1st ed. 1997); cf. United States v. Perkins, 470 

F.3d 150, 159–60 (4th Cir. 2006) (expert’s testimony was admissible because it did not 

“merely [tell] the jury what verdict to reach”).

In this case, the ultimate issue is whether breached its contractual obligations in 

designing and assigning the Opportunities challenged by Bona Fide. Ms. Wills’s 

proffered testimony goes to this ultimate issue because her theory (and indeed, 

SourceAmerica’s theory upon its motion for summary judgment) is that the Settlement 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 27 of

 37
28

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

Agreement requires only regulatory and statutory compliance. Therefore, proffered 

testimony that SourceAmerica has fulfilled its regulatory and statutory duties (and 

adequately applied its internal policies) is nothing more a pure legal conclusion on an 

ultimate issue of law, once removed. It is excludable on that basis. 

Even if Ms. Wills had not attempted to draw the impermissible linkages between 

the Settlement Agreement on the one hand and regulatory compliance on the other, the 

same outcome would apply. Courts routinely exclude experts from testifying on 

compliance with regulatory or industry standards—i.e., legal explanations and 

conclusions. See, e.g., Pelletier v. Main Street Textiles, LP, 470 F.3d 48, 54–55 (1st Cir. 

2006) (affirming exclusion of “expert testimony about the applicability of OSHA 

regulations to [defendant]”); Bammerlin v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 30 F.3d 898, 900 

(7th Cir. 1994) (excluding expert testimony regarding compliance with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards); United States v. S. Ind. Gas & Elec. Co., 55 Env’t Rep. Cas. 

(BNA) 1597, 2002 WL 31427523, at *7–8 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 24, 2002) (excluding expert 

testimony interpreting the Clean Air Act and its accompanying regulations). Although 

SourceAmerica points out that some courts have at their discretion permitted expert 

testimony on regulatory compliance, this Court is not prepared to allow the same in this 

case. 

Hooper v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 688 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2012), a case relied 

upon by Bona Fide, is instructive. At issue was the district court’s exclusion of an expert 

who offered to dissect the defendant’s compliance with a regulatory standard, MIL-STD 

498, in support of the qui tam plaintiff’s theory that Lockheed had defrauded the 

government under a contract for space launch operations software. MIL-STD 498 was 

apparently the standard requirement regarding software used in government contracts. 

Id. at 1052. The expert’s opinion was offered “to determine whether Lockheed’s 

performance under the contract did in fact violate the requirements of MIL-STD 498.” 

Id. The district court excluded the testimony because those opinions amounted to legal 

conclusions in the context of the case. Id. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 28 of

 37
29

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

holding that not only was there no rule requiring a district court to accept such testimony, 

but that, “even if [expert] testimony may assist the trial of fact, the trial court has broad 

discretion to admit or exclude it.” Id. at 1053 (quotation marks and citation omitted); see

also Nationwide, 523 F.3d at 1059 (holding that there is no support for Nationwide’s 

argument “that a district court per se abuses its discretion when it excludes testimony 

instructing the jury on legal issues”). The same concerns which motivated the district 

court in Hooper to exclude the MIL-STD 498 testimony also animate this Court to 

exclude testimony as to compliance with FAR, AbilityOne Commission Policies, and 

internal SourceAmerica policies and procedures.3 

Furthermore, it is especially concerning to the Court that Ms. Wills’s conclusions 

with respect to the individual Opportunities at issue are couched in terms of disputed 

contractual language. For example, with respect to Opportunity Notice 1483, Ms. Wills 

states that not only did SourceAmerica adhere to its internal policies and procedures, 

FAR 8.7, 41 CFR 51, and Ability One Commission regulations and policies “to

objectively assess and recommend the most appropriate NPA based on the requirements 

included in the Opportunity Notice,” but that “SourceAmerica’s recommendation was 

conducted in a fair, transparent and equitable method without impartiality and without 

improper preferential treatment of any responding NPA.” (ECF No. 541, at 36 (Sealed) 

(emphasis added)). This opinion is included at the tail-end of all of her Opportunityspecific discussions. By offering her analysis in the terms of the Settlement Agreement, 

 

3

It should be noted that the Court is not excluding this testimony based on Bona Fide’s argument 

that Ms. Wills used an improper legal standard in arriving at her conclusions, that is, she used the legal 

standard applicable to Tucker Act bid protests to evaluate whether there was a “rational basis” for each 

one of SourceAmerica’s NPA recommendations. (ECF No. 561-1, at 22; ECF No. 573, at 6.) Based on 

the record before the Court, there is no evidence that Ms. Wills ever evaluated SourceAmerica’s NPA 

recommendations for rational basis. The few stray sentences in Ms. Wills’s deposition relied upon by 

Bona Fide indicate only that Ms. Wills believed she was qualified as an expert in the AbilityOne 

procurement process because she had experience with Tucker Act bid protests, and that the two 

processes were more or less analogous. (ECF No. 573, at 6 (citing ECF No. 573-1, at 13).) Nowhere 

does Ms. Wills state that she applied a rational basis review of SourceAmerica’s NPA recommendation 

decisions. The Court will not exclude Ms. Wills’s proffered testimony on this basis.

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 29 of

 37
30

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

(ECF No. 519-4, at 7 (obligating SourceAmerica “to use best efforts to provide that Bona 

Fide is treated objectively, fairly, and equitably in its dealings with with 

[SourceAmerica],” and to “use best efforts to provide that Bona Fide is afforded equal 

access to services provided by [SourceAmerica]”)), Ms. Wills’s proposed testimony does 

no more than tell the jury what verdict to reach on the ultimate issue, and must be 

excluded for that reason. See Lee, 2010 WL 11549637, at *10. 

B. Testimony that Bona Fide did not pursue all available appeals to 

Source America’s assignment decisions 

Bona Fide next argues that Ms. Wills must be precluded from opining that Bona 

Fide “did not fully exercise the processes and avenues available to it to appeal” 

SourceAmerica’s assignment decisions. (ECF No. 561-1, at 24.) This critique is aimed 

at Paragraphs 238–243 of Ms. Wills’s report, in which she explained that SourceAmerica 

had policies in place providing for appeals, that Bona Fide had pursued appeals for only 

three of the thirteen Opportunities challenged in its pleadings, and that even those three 

appeals had not been pursued exhaustively. (ECF No. 541-1, at 33–35 (Sealed).) Bona 

Fide seeks to preclude this failure-to-mitigate testimony pursuant to Rule 702(a) because 

it believes that Ms. Wills’s analysis requires no special expertise, and that the jury could 

gain the information just by reviewing the internal appeals policies and Bona Fide’s 

exhibits. 

With one exception, the objected-to testimony should not be excluded. That Ms. 

Wills’s opinions are based on a review of documents does not automatically make them 

unhelpful to the trier of fact. Indeed, there are a high volume of documents in this case, 

many of them involving internal SourceAmerica policy, and others which detail Bona 

Fide’s submissions for consideration on a number of disputed Opportunities. Distilling 

the contents of those submissions and comparing them to the available internal appeals 

mechanisms will aid the jury’s understanding of the dispute at hand. 

The Court is unpersuaded by Bona Fide’s reliance on Beech Aircraft Corp. v. 

United States, 51 F.3d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1995). Bona Fide cites Beech Aircraft for the 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 30 of

 37
31

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

proposition that a jury is fully capable of examining the exhibits in the record to 

determine the disputed issue, and that Ms. Wills’s proposed testimony is unhelpful as a 

result. (ECF No. 561-1, at 14.) Beech Aircraft, however, stands for a much more limited 

proposition than Bona Fide suggests. There, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district 

court’s exclusion of linguistics experts offered to decipher the contents of hard-to-hear

tape recordings, holding that “hearing is within the ability and experience of the trier of 

fact.” Beech, 51 F.3d at 842. The facts in Beech are a far cry from the situation at hand, 

since the evaluation of NPA responses are not so clearly within the ability and experience 

of the average person. 

Thus, Ms. Wills will not be precluded from offering her assessment that Bona Fide 

left certain avenues of appeals unexplored. However, it bears repeating that Ms. Wills 

may not testify that SourceAmerica’s internal appeals procedures were in compliance 

with regulatory standards. Consistent with the Court’s decision supra, Ms. Wills is 

precluded from giving the opinion stated in Paragraph 240 of her expert report. (ECF 

No. 541-1, at 34 (“[T]he appeal process set forth in Source America’s procedures for 

project development distribution and transparency meets the requirements outlined in 

AbilityOne Policy 51.301 and 41 CFR Part 51-2.6.”) (Sealed).)

C. Testimony as to the validity of Bona Fide’s pleadings

Bona Fide seeks to preclude Ms. Wills’s testimony that “Bona Fide asserts a 

variety of factual misrepresentations in its Amended and Supplemental Complaint and 

Interrogatory Response.” (ECF No. 561-1, at 24). At issue is Ms. Wills’s contention at

deposition that Bona Fide “knowingly made false statements of fact” in its pleadings, 

(ECF No. 541-3, at 71–72 (Sealed)), and her conclusion at Paragraphs 61, and 244–247 

of her expert report, that “[m]any of [Bona Fide’s] allegations cannot be supported by the 

record and misrepresent SourceAmerica’s efforts to treat Bona Fide fairly and equitably 

in the recommendation process.” (ECF No. 541-1, at 35–37 (Sealed).). Bona Fide 

contends that it is improper for Ms. Wills to impeach the veracity and validity of its 

allegations, since expert witnesses may not testify as to credibility. 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 31 of

 37
32

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

The Court finds the proffered testimony impermissible, but not on the grounds 

stated by Bona Fide. The cases Bona Fide cites only forbid experts from “testify[ing] 

specifically to a witness’s credibility or to testify in such a manner as to improperly 

buttress a witness’ credibility.” United States v. Candoli, 870 F.2d 496, 506 (9th Cir. 

1989) (emphasis added). They say nothing about whether an expert may impugn the 

credibility of allegations made by the opposing party in its pleadings. 

Nonetheless, the Court is not prepared to allow Ms. Wills to offer what is in effect 

an opinion on the sufficiency of Bona Fide’s legal pleadings. Such testimony is 

impermissible because “[e]xpert evidence should not be permitted to usurp . . . the role of 

the jury in applying the law to the facts before it.” 1 Primavera Familienstifung v. Askin, 

130 F. Supp. 2d 450, 528 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). If Bona Fide’s allegations are factually 

deficient, then it is the role of the jury, as fact-finder, to so find. To aid the jury in its 

determination, Ms. Wills may point out where, and in what manner, the facts detailed in 

Bona Fide’s allegations do not find support in the documents she reviewed. But she may 

not make a global indictment of Bona Fide’s legal pleadings, since this lies outside of her 

expertise as a government contracting expert. 

Moreover, Ms. Wills’s characterization of Bona Fide’s actions—i.e., that it made 

“misrepresentations,” and “knowingly made false statements of fact,”—carry with them 

connotations of deceit and willful action, which the Court finds more prejudicial than 

probative under Rule 403. Quite apart from that, there’s no indication that Ms. Wills had 

any personal knowledge of Bona Fide’s state of mind with regards to the statements it 

chose to include in its pleadings. She therefore cannot purport to testify about the issue. 

See Applestein v. Medivation, Inc., 561 F. App’x 598, 600 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished)

(“Dr. Schneider’s opinion is insufficient to establish falsity adequately because he has no 

personal knowledge of the facts on which he bases his conclusion.”). 

D. Testimony criticizing the opinions of Mr. Jans

Bona Fide also contends that Ms. Wills improperly usurps the Court’s gatekeeping 

role by couching her disagreement with Mr. Jans’s opinions in Rule 702 language. (ECF 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 32 of

 37
33

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

No. 561-1, at 27.) Specifically, Bona Fide seeks to preclude Ms. Wills from using words 

like “unreliable,” “meritless,” “invalid,” and “erroneous,” to describe Mr. Jans’s 

methodology, and to prevent her from opining that his conclusions “have no reliable basis 

in fact.” (Id.) 

The Court will not exclude this testimony. Ms. Wills is well within her rights to 

question the methods and conclusions of a competing expert witness. As SourceAmerica 

points out, Ms. Wills’s critiques are classic rebuttal testimony. Just because they are 

expressed in terms also germane to a Daubert analysis does not turn her valid rebuttal 

testimony into an usurpation of the Court’s gatekeeping duties. 

E. Failure to disclose, and failure to preserve Rule 26(a)(2) materials

Finally, the Court will address Bona Fide’s contention that Ms. Wills’s testimony 

must be excluded in its entirety pursuant to Rule 37, as a result of her failure to abide by 

the disclosure requirements in Rule 26(a)(2). Rule 26 requires an expert like Ms. Wills to 

issue a written report that discloses, among other things, “the facts or data considered by 

the witness in forming them.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(ii). Rule 37(c)(1) provides 

that, unless the failure to disclose is harmless, or there exist substantial justification for 

nondisclosure, evidence not disclosed may be excluded. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. 

Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The information may be 

introduced if the parties’ failure to disclose the required information is substantially 

justified or harmless.”)

1. Relevant Procedural Background

Ms. Wills acknowledged at a deposition on June 20, 2018, that the materials listed 

in her deposition did not encompass “the entire universe of documents that [she] 

reviewed,” and that the flash drives she had produced in response to Bona Fide’s 

subpoena “really contained the materials [she] relied upon and not all of the materials 

[she] considered.” (ECF No. 541-3, at 16, 27–28.) Ms. Wills further stated that she did 

not “keep track” of all the materials that she reviewed but did not rely on. (Id. at 10.) 

Among those missing materials were notes made by Ms. Wills and her staff during their 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 33 of

 37
34

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

recreation of SourceAmerica’s evaluative process vis-à-vis the Opportunities challenged 

by Bona Fide. (Id. at 50). Ms. Wills represented during the deposition that she would 

produce those notes if she still had them. 

After the deposition, Bona Fide moved to exclude her testimony pursuant to Rule 

37. Bona Fide contended that Ms. Wills neglected to timely disclose in her written report 

“all of the materials that she considered in formulating her opinions.” (ECF No. 561-1, at 

29.) In response to Bona Fide’s motion, SourceAmerica submitted a declaration from 

Ms. Wills that advised for the first time: 

At deposition, I testified that I did not know whether my notes and working papers, 

including my own evaluations of NPA responses, were produced to Bona Fide. It is 

not my practice to keep working papers, notes, or drafts, once I prepare final expert 

reports. After my deposition, I verified that I followed this practice and all notes, 

working papers, and drafts were not retained once my Expert and Rebuttal Reports 

were each finalized. My own evaluations of NPA responses are entirely 

incorporated within my Expert Report; I did not create any additional analyses of 

NPA responses other than the analysis included in my reports. Further, all 

documents cited in support of those analyses were provided to Bona Fide prior to 

my deposition.

(ECF No. 550-1, at 3 (emphasis added.))

Upon receiving this information, Bona Fide doubled-down on its request to 

exclude Ms. Wills’s testimony, this time, for failing to preserve her working notes (ECF 

No. 573, at 10–11).4 Bona Fide’s motion puts two issues before the Court: (1) are notes 

and working papers subject to disclosure under Rule 26(a)(2), and (2) if so, are exclusion 

sanctions under Rule 37 warranted in the event of their destruction? 

2. Analysis

The disclosure mandated by Rule 26(a)(2) includes any facts or data considered by 

the expert in forming their opinion. See Lucent Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 07-

CV-2000 H (CAB), 2010 WL 11442894, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2010). Courts have 

 

4 Ms. Wills stated in her declaration that all of the materials she had relied on, except for her 

working notes, had since been produced to Bona Fide. 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 34 of

 37
35

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

adopted a very broad understanding of what it means for material to have been 

“considered” by an expert for the purposes of Rule 26(a)(2). 

Working papers or notes generated by an expert would ostensibly fall within the 

bounds of “considered” materials. For example, courts have defined materials 

“considered” as “anything received, reviewed, read, or authorized by the expert, before or 

in connection with the forming of his opinion, if the subject matter relates to the facts or 

opinions expressed.” Euclid Chem. Co. v. Vector Corrosion Techs. Inc., No. 1:05CV80, 

2007 WL 1560277, at *4 (N.D. Ohio May 29, 2007) (footnotes and citations omitted). 

Rule 26(a)(2) has also been construed to require the disclosure of any materials authored

by the expert during their consultation. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Reyes, 2007 WL 

963422, *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2007) (“When experts serve as testifying witnesses, the 

discovery rules generally require the materials reviewed or generated by them to be 

disclosed . . . .”). 

However, some courts have held to the contrary. Relying principally on a First 

Circuit decision, Gillespie v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 386 F. 3d 21, 34–35 (1st Cir. 2004), 

courts have held that the requirement to disclose any materials considered by the expert 

does not include working notes. Id. (“Gillespie claims that this expert discovery rule 

itself required the working notes because it requires a report stating the expert’s opinions 

and reasoning and ‘the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the 

opinions.’ But this language does not require that the expert report contain, or be 

accompanied by, all working notes or recordings . . . “) (citing FED. R. CIV. P.

26(a)(2)(B)). 

The Court, however, need not reconcile the conflicting law on the disclosure of 

expert working notes. Even if Ms. Wills did in fact have a duty to disclose her notes in

accordance with Rule 26(a)(2), her failure to preserve was harmless and exclusion 

sanctions are therefore not necessary.5

 

5 The Court agrees with Bona Fide that there was no substantial justification for Ms. Wills’s 

destruction of her notes. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(c)(1). As Bona Fide has pointed out, it is not enough for 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 35 of

 37
36

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

Bona Fide argues it suffered prejudice, and that Ms. Wills’s actions were not 

harmless under Rule 37(c)(1). It claims it has been deprived of a meaningful opportunity 

to cross-examine Ms. Wills on her conclusions and any intervening findings she might 

have made in her working papers at variance with her ultimate report. The Court finds 

that while prejudice might lie in the ordinary case, see In re Mirena IUD Products Litig., 

169 F. Supp.3d 396, 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“Allowing Dr. Hixon to testify without having 

fully disclosed the bases for her opinions is harmful to Plaintiffs because they cannot 

effectively cross-examine her.”), the destruction of Ms. Wills’s working papers do not 

seem particularly prejudicial in light of the factual particulars of this case. 

Ms. Wills stated in her declaration that her working paper “evaluations of NPA 

responses are entirely incorporated within [her] Expert Report.” (ECF No. 550-1, at 3.) 

That being the case, Bona Fide could simply cross-examine Ms. Wills on the methods 

and analysis enclosed in her final expert report. Indeed, similar quandaries were 

presented in Patel v. Verde Valley Med. Ctr., No. CV051129PHXMHM, 2009 WL 

5842048 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2009) and Tipp v. Adeptus Health Inc., No. CV-16-02317-

PHX-DGC, 2018 WL 447256 (D. Ariz. Jan. 17, 2018). The analyses of those courts are 

instructive. 

In Patel, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s expert “should be excluded 

because he destroyed his notes.” 2009 WL 5842048, at *1. However, the district court 

“decline[d] to exclude Dr. Dobson’s testimony merely because he discarded his notes,” 

since “Defendants are free to raise th[e] issue as a means of attacking Dr. Dobson’s 

credibility with the jury if they so desire.” Id. Similarly, the district court in Tipp

 

Ms. Wills to state that it was her general practice to discard her working notes. (ECF No. 573, at 10.) 

Indeed, Ms. Wills’s general practice does not diminish the force of Bona Fide’s argument—submitted 

upon a request for judicial notice, hereby granted—that the relevant professional standards for CPAs 

like Ms. Wills recommend her to “prepare and maintain documentation,” including “working paper 

documentation (including electronic mail, spreadsheets, and correspondence),” since “the form and 

content of working papers and . . . related documentation may also be subject to discovery depending 

upon the role of the practitioner.” (ECF No. 573-2, at 16, 17 (“Litigation Services and Accountable 

Professional Standards,” by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants)). 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 36 of

 37
37

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

considered whether the defense’s witness should be precluded from testifying as to her 

investigation because she had her shredded handwritten notes. Like Bona Fide, the 

plaintiff in Tipp sought to exclude the witness on the grounds that the “handwritten notes 

were relevant and may have included additional or inconsistent information.” 2018 WL 

447256, at *5. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument on the grounds that any potential

harm could be cured by permitting plaintiff “to present evidence of [the witness’s] 

destruction of the handwritten notes,” and “to argue to the jury that the notes could have 

been helpful to her case.” Id.

The Court is not prepared to exclude Ms. Wills in light of the considered opinions 

articulated in Tipp and Patel. If the matter is set for trial, Bona Fide will be permitted to 

cross-examine Ms. Wills regarding her destruction of her notes and working papers, and 

to challenge her credibility for having done so. No additional sanctions are warranted. 

VI. Conclusion

Consistent with the above analysis, Bona Fide’s motion to exclude the testimony of 

Mary Karen Wills is granted in part and denied in part (ECF No. 561). 

SourceAmerica’s motion to exclude the testimony of Kevin M. Jans is also granted in 

part and denied in part (ECF No. 521). SourceAmerica’s motion to strike portions of 

Mr. Jans’s declarations is also granted in part and denied in part (ECF No. 575). 

Dated: March 26, 2019

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 620 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 37 of

 37