UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

—————————————————––––––––x 

IN RE CMS ENERGY SECURITIES 

LITIGATION 

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil No. 02 CV 72004 (GCS) 

(Consolidated) 

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

—————————————————––––––––x 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AND TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM 

RELYING ON REBUTTAL REPORTS OF CYRIL MOSCOW AND DAVID TABAK 

ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 

Vincent R. Cappucci 

Steven D. Oestreich 

Robert N. Cappucci 

William W. Wickersham 

280 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10017 

(212) 894-7200 

ELWOOD S. SIMON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Elwood S. Simon 

355 South Old Woodward Ave. 

Suite 250 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 646-9730 

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & 

SCHULMAN LLP 

Robert A. Wallner 

Clifford S. Goodstein 

Todd Kammerman 

One Pennsylvania Plaza 

New York, New York 

(212) 594-5300 

Co-Lead Counsel For Plaintiffs

THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 

E. Powell Miller 

Marc L. Newman 

950 West University Drive 

Suite 300 

Rochester, Michigan 48307 

(248) 841-2200 

www.millerlawpc.com

Co-Liaison Counsel For Plaintiffs

October 6, 2006 

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6549 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 13
Lead Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully move, pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, for an Order (i) striking the 

rebuttal reports of Cyril Moscow and David Tabak and (ii) precluding defendants from relying 

upon those reports or any opinions expressed therein, and for such other relief as may be just and 

proper. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a), concurrence in the relief requested was sought on October 

6, 2006 from counsel for defendant CMS Energy Corporation, but was not obtained. 

DATED: October 6, 2006 Respectfully submitted, 

THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 

By: /s/ Marc L. Newman

 E. Powell Miller (P39487) 

 Marc L. Newman (P51393) 

950 West University Drive, Suite 300 

Rochester, Michigan 48307 

(248) 841-2200 

www.millerlawpc.com 

mln@millerlawpc.com 

ELWOOD S. SIMON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Elwood S. Simon 

355 South Old Woodward Ave. 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 646-9730 

Co-Liaison Counsel For Lead Plaintiffs 

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6550 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 13
2

ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 

Vincent R. Cappucci 

Steven D. Oestreich 

Robert N. Cappucci 

William W. Wickersham 

280 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10017 

(212) 894-7200

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & 

 SCHULMAN LLP 

Robert A. Wallner 

Clifford S. Goodstein 

Todd Kammerman 

One Pennsylvania Plaza 

New York, New York 10019 

(212) 594-5300 

Co-Lead Counsel For Lead Plaintiffs 

DOCS\379584v1 

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6551 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

—————————————————––––––––x 

IN RE CMS ENERGY SECURITIES 

LITIGATION 

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil No. 02 CV 72004 (GCS) 

(Consolidated) 

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

—————————————————––––––––x 

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE 

REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORTS OF CYRIL MOSCOW AND DAVID TABAK 

ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 

Vincent R. Cappucci 

Steven D. Oestreich 

Robert N. Cappucci 

William W. Wickersham 

280 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10017 

(212) 894-7200 

ELWOOD S. SIMON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Elwood S. Simon 

355 South Old Woodward Ave. 

Suite 250 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 646-9730 

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & 

SCHULMAN LLP 

Robert A. Wallner 

Clifford S. Goodstein 

Todd Kammerman 

One Pennsylvania Plaza 

New York, New York 10119 

(212) 594-5300 

Co-Lead Counsel For Plaintiffs

THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 

E. Powell Miller 

Marc L. Newman 

950 West University Drive 

Suite 300 

Rochester, Michigan 48307 

(248) 841-2200 

www.millerlawpc.com

Co-Liaison Counsel For Plaintiffs

October 6, 2006 

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6552 Filed 10/06/06 Page 4 of 13
i 

Issues Presented 

1. Whether the Court should strike and preclude defendants from relying upon an 

expert report that, although denominated as a “rebuttal” report, is actually an untimely opening 

expert report. 

2. Whether the Court should strike and preclude defendants from relying upon 

expert reports that proffer and are based upon legal opinions. 

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6553 Filed 10/06/06 Page 5 of 13
ii

Most Appropriate Authorities 

Untimely and Improper “Rebuttal” Report

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) 

Sommer v. Davis, 317 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2003) 

Improper Legal Opinions

Fed. R. Evid. 702 

Woods v. Lecureux, 110 F.3d 1215 (6th Cir. 1997) 

Torres v. County of Oakland, 758 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1985) 

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6554 Filed 10/06/06 Page 6 of 13
Lead Plaintiffs respectfully submit this memorandum in support of their motion, pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) and Fed. R. Evid. 702, to strike the expert rebuttal reports of Cyril 

Moscow (“Moscow Report”) and David Tabak (“Tabak Report”) submitted by defendant CMS.1

In this action, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that CMS and the individual 

defendants violated federal securities law by making misrepresentations and omissions 

concerning round-trip trades. See generally In re CMS Energy Sec. Litig., 2005 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 439 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 7, 2005) (ruling on motion to dismiss). 

By Order dated August 24, 2006 (Document 406), the Court extended -- at CMS’ request 

and over plaintiffs’ objections -- the date for the submission of opening expert reports of nonaccountants to August 25, 2006, and the date for rebuttal expert reports of non-accountants to 

September 29, 2006.2

 For its non-accountant rebuttal reports, CMS submitted three reports. 

The reports include the report of Cyril Moscow, an attorney and adjunct law professor, 

that addresses two issues: (i) the legal ability, under Michigan law, of directors and officers of a 

Michigan corporation to rely upon an outside auditor, and (ii) whether defendants’ conduct was 

“reckless” under Sixth Circuit law. See Moscow Report §§ IV, VII. The Moscow Report should 

be stricken for two reasons. First, the report is an untimely opening report, not a rebuttal report. 

 

1

 Copies of the Moscow and Tabak Reports are annexed hereto as Exhibits A and B, 

respectively. Plaintiffs are not waiving any other potential objections to these expert reports (or 

any objections to defendants’ other expert reports), including potential challenges under Daubert 

v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny. Plaintiffs are filing this 

motion at this juncture as it may affect the necessity of conducting or the scope of depositions 

with respect to Moscow and Tabak’s rebuttal reports. 

2

 Plaintiffs and CMS agreed to adjust the rebuttal expert deadline to October 4, 2006. 

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6555 Filed 10/06/06 Page 7 of 13
2

Second, the report simply offers legal opinions, which is not a permissible subject of expert 

testimony. 

The Tabak Report, too, contains and relies upon legal analysis.3 Accordingly, that report 

likewise should be stricken. 

ARGUMENT

I. THE MOSCOW REPORT IS NOT A PERMISSIBLE “REBUTTAL” REPORT 

Though denominated a “rebuttal” report, the Moscow Report is nothing of the sort. It is 

not responsive to plaintiffs’ opening expert reports; indeed, plaintiffs’ opening expert reports 

offered no legal opinions concerning the issues raised by Moscow. See generally Daly v. Far 

Eastern Shipping Co. PLC, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1240-41 (W.D. Wash 2003). 

To the extent that Moscow’s opinions are appropriately considered in this litigation (they 

are not), they should have been submitted on August 25, 2006; i.e., the date set by the Court for 

the service of opening expert reports.4 Thus, the report should be stricken as untimely under the 

August 24, 2006 Order. See Sommer v. Davis, 317 F.3d 686, 691-92 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming 

district court’s preclusion of expert witness where plaintiffs articulated no “substantial” 

justification for their failure to meet expert-disclosure deadline).5

 

 

3 See Tabak Rebuttal Report at 8 n.20, 16, 18 n.34. Tabak is not an attorney. 

4

 That date in fact was an adjourned date, set in response (over plaintiffs’ objection) to CMS’ 

representation that it needed additional time to submit its opening expert reports. See CMS’ 

Emergency Motion for Modification of Scheduling Order (Document 398), dated August 16, 

2006. 

5

 If the Moscow Report is not stricken, plaintiffs should be granted leave to serve a responsive 

report. 

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6556 Filed 10/06/06 Page 8 of 13
3

II. THE MOSCOW AND TABAK REPORTS ARE BASED UPON IMPERMISSIBLE 

LEGAL OPINIONS 

The law is well-established that a witness may not offer legal opinions or conclusions. 

See Woods v. Lecureux, 110 F.3d 1215, 1220 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[T]estimony offering nothing 

more than a legal conclusion -- i.e., testimony that does little more than tell the jury what result 

to reach -- is properly excludable under the Rules.”); see also Slayton v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth 

Serv., 206 F.3d 669, 677 (6th Cir. 2000) (“a district court abuses its discretion when it ‘allows a 

witness to define legal terms, especially terms that carry a considerable amount of legal 

baggage.’”) (quoting Woods, 110 F.3d at 1220); Torres v. County of Oakland, 758 F.2d 147, 

150-51 (6th Cir. 1985) (citing numerous cases); 

As the Sixth Circuit has explained, such testimony creates the risk of placing “erroneous, 

legal standards” before the jury. Torres, 758 F.2d at 150. Moreover, it “invade[s] the province 

of the court to determine the applicable law and to instruct the jury as to that law.” Id. (citation 

omitted, brackets in original); see also Marx & Co. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 512 (2d 

Cir. 1977) (“The danger is that the jury may think that the ‘expert’ in the particular branch of the 

law knows more than the judge -- surely an impermissible inference in our system of law.”). In 

the end, the testimony does not “assist the trier of fact,” see Fed. R. Evid. 702, and thus should 

be precluded. 

The Moscow Report consists virtually entirely of legal analysis. Worse yet, it purports to 

combine Moscow’s legal analysis with his legal conclusion that defendants were not “reckless.” 

See Moscow Report at p. 8. Such “state of mind” expert opinion by Mr. Moscow6

 (or any other 

 

6 See also Moscow Report at 5 (“It was reasonable for CMS and its directors and officers to rely 

Footnote continued 

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6557 Filed 10/06/06 Page 9 of 13
4

purported expert) is patently impermissible. See Woods, 110 F.3d at 1221 (affirming lower 

court’s preclusion of expert’s testimony about defendant’s “deliberate indifference”); Berry v. 

City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342, 1353 (6th Cir. 1994). 

The Court likewise should strike the Tabak Report. That report liberally cites (and thus is 

improperly based upon a lay witness’ understanding of) case law. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion should be granted 

DATED: October 6, 2006 Respectfully submitted, 

THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 

By: /s/ Marc L. Newman

 E. Powell Miller (P39487) 

 Marc L. Newman (P51393) 

950 West University Drive, Suite 300 

Rochester, Michigan 48307 

(248) 841-2200 

www.millerlawpc.com

mln@millerlawpc.com

ELWOOD S. SIMON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Elwood S. Simon 

355 South Old Woodward Ave. 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 646-9730 

Co-Liaison Counsel For Lead Plaintiffs 

 

upon Arthur Andersen ....”); id. at 7 (“[T]here is no indication in the facts that this was the result 

of intentional misconduct or a gross disregard of duties.”); id. (“There is no indication that CMS 

consciously intended to issue false and misleading financial statements.”). 

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6558 Filed 10/06/06 Page 10 of 13
5

ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 

Vincent R. Cappucci 

Steven D. Oestreich 

Robert N. Cappucci 

William W. Wickersham 

280 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10017 

(212) 894-7200 

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & 

 SCHULMAN LLP 

Robert A. Wallner 

Clifford S. Goodstein 

Todd Kammerman 

One Pennsylvania Plaza 

New York, New York 10119 

(212) 594-5300 

Co-Lead Counsel For Lead Plaintiffs 

DOCS\379462v1

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6559 Filed 10/06/06 Page 11 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 6, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing paper 

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF System which will send notification of such filing to 

the following: 

$ Patrick E. Cafferty pcafferty@millerfaucher.com pecafferty@aol.com 

$ Robert N. Cappucci rcappucci@entwistle-law.com wwickersham@entwistlelaw.com,vcappucci@entwistle-law.com 

$ Gregory A. Clifton gclifton@durkinmcdonnell.com carrie@durkinmcdonnell.com 

$ Thomas R. Cox cox@millercanfield.com grainger@millercanfield.com 

$ Clifford S. Goodstein cgoodstein@milbergweiss.com 

$ Todd A. Holleman holleman@millercanfield.com 

lingenfelter@millercanfield.com 

$ Sheldon H. Klein klein@butzel.com 

$ Krista L. Lenart klenart@dykema.com chammond@dykema.com 

$ Daryl A. Libow libowd@sullcrom.com 

$ Joseph J. McDonnel ljmcdonnell@durkinmcdonnell.com 

carrie@durkinmcdonnell.com 

$ Joseph J. Reilly reillyj@sullcrom.com kosae@sullcrom.com 

$ James K. Robinson jim.robinson@cwt.com 

$ Richard A. Rossman rossmanr@pepperlaw.com kuschj@pepperlaw.com 

$ Ryan T. Scarborough rscarborough@wc.com 

$ Neil A. Steiner neil.Steiner@dechert.com luis.lopez@dechert.com 

$ Robert A. Wallner rwallner@milbergweiss.com 

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6560 Filed 10/06/06 Page 12 of 13
2

$ Stephen Wasinger sfw@sfwlaw.com ntetreau@kickhamhanley.com 

$ Michael G. Wilson mgwilson@cmsenergy.com 

And I hereby certify that I mailed the foregoing paper to the following non-ECF attorneys: 

Steven J. Aranoff 

Eric N. Landau 

McDermott, Will, 

18191 Von Karman Avenue 

Suite 500 

Irvine, CA 92612-7108 

Lewis J. Liman 

Cleary, Gottlieb, (New York) 

One Liberty Plaza 

New York, NY 10006 

Elwood S. Simon 

Elwood S. Simon Assoc. 

355 S. Woodward Avenue 

Suite 350 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

 /s/ Marc L. Newman 

Marc L. Newman (P51393) 

The Miller Law Firm, P.C. 

Co-Liaison Counsel For Lead Plaintiffs 

950 West University Drive 

Suite 300 

Rochester, Michigan 48307 

 (248) 841-2200 

www.millerlawpc.com 

 mln@millerlawpc.com

Case 2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM ECF No. 425, PageID.6561 Filed 10/06/06 Page 13 of 13