In a Michigan case, there were a number of motions to exclude expert witnesses in a damages case that involved employee poaching in the automotive industry. The motions were granted with respect to lay witnesses but denied (or partially granted) with respect to damages experts, as follows:

• The defendants’ motion to exclude the plaintiff’s industry expert was denied (the expert had over 40 years of experience in the industry and would testify as to industry customs and practices);
• The plaintiff’s motion (in limine) to preclude the defendant from presenting expert testimony from lay witnesses was granted (they were employees of the defendant);
• The defendants’ motion to exclude testimony of the plaintiff’s owner as an expert was granted (he can testify as to his own personal experiences but not as to industry customs and practices);
• The defendants’ motion to exclude the plaintiff’s damages expert was denied (he was not a CPA or had business valuation credentials, but he was a JD/MBA who had testified in a number of damages cases); and
• The plaintiff’s Daubert motion to exclude specific expert testimony from the defendant’s expert was granted in part (he was an ASA and CVA who would be a rebuttal expert to the plaintiff’s damages expert).

The case is Auto Konnect, LLC. v BMW of North America, LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42345, and a case analysis and full opinion are available on the BVLaw platform.

Extra: There are proposed changes to strengthen Rule 702, which is the federal rule of evidence regarding testifying experts. See the April 2022 issue of Business Valuation Update for details.