Opinion ID: 169778
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Expert Testimony Beyond Expertise

Text: Teahan had worked as a BPO processor for the Bank. She left the Bank to work for another national provider, National Properties Acquisition Consultants (NPA C), managing the BPO process. Eventually, Teahan bought the business and continued to be NPA C’s owner at the time of her testimony. Prior to trial, the Bank and Ocw en Technology challenged Teahan’s expertise under Daubert. A hearing was held before the magistrate judge. At the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate judge ruled Teahan could testify as an expert regarding the -45- practices of BPO sellers, such as Cartel, but was not qualified to offer opinions on the practices of BPO purchasers, such as the Bank. Nonetheless, during trial Teahan was asked about practices that occurred while she was working at Ocwen. Specifically, she was asked if she had “an opinion as to whether it was appropriate [for the Bank] to contact the agents w ho did [Cartel’s] BPOs to perform [a] new BPO.” (R. Vol. 7 at 2316.) She answered it was not the Bank’s “customary practice” to do that. (Id.) The Bank objected on the basis of the magistrate judge’s ruling, but the district court overruled the objection. Teahan continued to explain her experience at the Bank during the time the company was considering changing due to the increasing interest in e-commerce. She related a conversation with Bill Krueger where she stated it would be inappropriate to take the names off BPOs because a BPO “was not bought for the agent’s names.” (Id. at 2318.) W e agree the form of the question asking her “opinion” regarding what inform ation a B PO purchaser believes he is buying went beyond Teahan’s expertise as a BPO provider. However, much of her testimony related to her personal experiences at the Bank. This testimony was properly admitted as a background for her actions, such as her conversation with Krueger. In any event, we are convinced the testimony did not taint the liability verdict. The Bank had an opportunity to fully cross-examine Teahan on the limits of her expertise and there was plentiful testimony from other witnesses regarding the confidentiality -46- expectations of BPO purchasers and providers.