In a Tennessee damages case, the defense engaged a valuation expert to do two things: (1) critique the valuation report of the opposing side; and (2) offer his own estimate of damages. The expert was the target of a Daubert challenge with respect to both his critique and his estimate of damages.

Falls short: In his critique, the expert had a “fundamental misconception” of the nature of the subject business, the court found. For example, the business (in the cannabis industry) was a manufacturer, wholesaler, and online retailer but was “mischaracterized” by the expert as a small “brick-and-mortar, local, storefront retailer,” the court wrote. Also, the articles the expert cited to back up his opinions were “not scholarly” and didn’t cite any “legitimate data sources.” The court found that all the expert’s critiques were unreliable and inadmissible.

The court also noted that the critiques were “largely a matter of common sense” and an expert was not needed to examine the perceived inadequacies and oversights in the report, which could be done through cross-examination. While the expert’s critique was excluded, his own estimate of damages survived the Daubert challenge and was not excluded.

The case is Rieves v. Town of Smyrna, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18626, and a case digest and full opinion are available on the BVLaw platform.