© D.L. Crumbley
Weight v. Admissibility (Continued)
Admissibility affirmed. Defendants did not object at trial court level and so review is for plain error. Defendants say expert is unqualified, but he spent 33 years as IRS agent, mostly investigating financial fraud. Defendants also fault expert for basing analysis solely on bank records supplied by plaintiffs, rather than broader array of transactions, but this objection goes to weight, not admissibility.
Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Int’l, Inc., No.04-1493 (1st Cir. Oct 5, 2004).
Exclusion affirmed. Creditors argue that company’s quarrels with expert’s approach went to weight, not admissibility, but district court identified no fewer than eighteen deficiencies, and testimony was riddled with implausible and unexplained assumptions. No abuse of discretion.
Lippe v. Bairnco Corp., 288 B.R. 678 (S.D. N.Y. 2003), aff.d No. 03-7360 (2nd Cir. Apr. 9, 2004) (unpublished)