United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
E. Payne Senior United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS STEVES
AND SONS, INC., EDWARD STEVES, AND SAM STEVES' MOTION IN
LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF JELD-WEN DAMAGES EXPERT JOHN
JAROSZ (ECF No. 1052) . For the reasons set forth below, the
motion was denied. See ECF No. 1536.
Inc. ("JELD-WEN") has asserted two counterclaims
against Steves and Sons, Inc.
("Steves") based on Steves' alleged
misappropriation of JELD-WEN's trade secrets related to
two general categories: (1) the manufacturing process for
molded doorskins, and (2) financial data concerning
JELD-WEN's manufacturing procedures and doorskin sales.
The factual background underlying those claims is described
at length in the Court's recent opinion denying summary
judgment on certain aspects of those claims. See
Summary Judgment Op. (ECF No. 1424) at 2-7.
prevail on its misappropriation claims, JELD-WEN must
establish, inter alia, that it suffered damages.
Id. at 18. JELD-WEN seeks damages in the form of
Steves' unjust enrichment from the misappropriation or,
alternatively, a reasonable royalty. Damages Summary Judgment
Op. (ECF No. 1581) at 6; see also 18 U.S.C. §
1836(b) (3) (B) (i)-(ii); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ l34A.OO4(a). Consequently, JELD-WEN retained a damages
expert, John Jarosz ("Jarosz"), who analyzed
JELD-WEN's damages under three different scenarios. The
substance of those scenarios is discussed in more detail in
the Court's opinion denying summary judgment on
JELD-WEN's misappropriation damages claims. See
Damages Summary Judgment Op. at 8-11. Briefly restated here,
Jarosz's theories are as follows: (1) that Steves can use
certain process-related trade secrets to achieve reduced
costs for each doorskin that it produces in the event that it
builds a doorskin manufacturing plant ("Scenario
One"); (2) that Steves has used, and will continue to
use, certain financial trade secrets in negotiations for
lower doorskin prices with JELD-WEN or other doorskin
suppliers ("Scenario Two"); and (3) that JELD-WEN
is entitled to a reasonable royalty based on the combination
of two quantitative methods, the incremental benefits
approach and the licensing comparables approach
("Scenario Three") .
moves to exclude Jarosz's testimony on two general
grounds. First, relying on Fed.R.Evid. 702 and Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993),
Steves argues that all three scenarios are unreliable because
they conflict with the jury's finding in the antitrust
case that Steves will not be able to continue its business
past September 2021. Second, Steves contends that Jarosz
should not be permitted to testify about several issues under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1) because he failed to disclose certain
opinions in his opening report.
admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 702.
Under that rule, "[a] witness who is qualified as an
expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise
if" all of the following conditions are met:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the ...