UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

In Re: )

)

Lewis E. Wilkerson, Jr. ) Case No. 20-34576-KLP

)

Debtor ) Chapter 11

---------------------------------------------------- ) ------------------------------------------------------

ROBERT E. DIXON,

Individually and Derivatively on behalf of 

D.E.R. LLC, 

)

)

)

Plaintiff

)

)

v. ) Adversary Proceeding 

)

LEWIS E. WILKERSON, JR. , Debtor, ) No. 21- 03008- KLP

)

Defendant )

OBJECTION OF ROBERT E. DIXON INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR D.E.R. LLC TO 

DEFENDANT’S DESIGNATION OF REBUTTAL EXPERT WITNESS

Robert E. Dixon (the “Plaintiff” or “Mr. Dixon”), by counsel, respectfully objects to the 

Rebuttal Expert Disclsoure of defendant Lewis E. Wilkerson, Jr. filed March 21, 2022 as 

Document 42 and as cause sates:

1. The Report states on page 2 that proposed Expert Witness Dawn Wilkerson “is 

expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.” Rule 702 

provides for testimony of an expert witness, that is, one who is “expert by knowledge, skill, 

experience, training, or education.” Rule 703 providesthat “an expert may base an opinion on 

facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed.” Rule 

705 provides that “an expert may state an opinion — and give the reasons for it — without first 

testifying to the underlying facts or data.” 
2

2. Proposed expert Dawn Wilkerson is not an expert under any normal application of 

the word. The proposed expert dislosure filed by the Defendant does not meet the reliability 

requirement of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579,589 (1993) (“the 

trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only 

relevant, but reliable”). In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147-148 (1999), the 

Supreme Court clarified that the “gatekeeper” function of the trial courts in determining whether 

the proposed expert testimony met the reliability requirements behind both F. R. Evid. 702 and 

703 applies to all proposed expert testimony, not solely that carrying the label “scientific.” And 

what is apparent from the disclosure provided by the Defendant as to Dawn Wilkerson is that she 

has no professional training; based upon the disclosure she has had no academic training in 

accounting or bookkeeping and her sole experience is that of “bookkeeper for D.E.R. LLC and 

WST Products LLC since the inception of both companies” and is “intimately familiar with”

certain of the accounting records of these companies. Elements of her testimony may be 

admissible as a fact witness, but the disclosure provides no basis for according her the expertise 

that would qualify her as an expert witness properly able to present opinion testimony.

Given this shortfall in expertise, the Court need not reach the issues of whether the 

disclosure meets the requirements of Rule Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(i) and (ii).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Robert E. Dixon, individually and derivatively, 

prays that the Court determine that Dawn Wilkerson lacks the qualifications to present expert 

opinion evidence, as well as such other relief as is proper.
3

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT E. DIXON, Individually and 

Derivatively on behalf of D.E.R. LLC

Date: March 31, 2022 By: /s/ W. R. Baldwin, III

Counsel

W. R. Baldwin, III (VSB #16988) 

Meyer Baldwin, Long & Moore, LLP 

5600 Grove Avenue 

Richmond, VA 23226 

Voice: (804) 285-3338 

Fax: (804) 285-7779 

Email: billbaldwin@meyerbaldwin.com

ECF: billbaldwin@comcast.net

Co-Counsel for the Plaintiff 

William F. Seymour, IV, Esq.

FloranceGordonBrown, P.C.

One James Center, Suite 1 900

901 East Cary Street

Richmond, VA 23219

Voice: (804) 697-5100

Fax: (804) 697-5159

Email: wseymour@fgb.com 

Co-Counsel for the Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was served by the ECF procedures of 

this Court on March 31, 2022, on all parties hereto subject to such procedures, to included Ross. 

Allen, Esq. and Robert Canfield, Esq, co-counsel for the Defendant Lewis E. Wilkerson, Jr.. at 

their addresses of record. 

 /s/ W. R. Baldwin, III