gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.599.0.pdf

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 12 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF GREGORY B. TAYLOR AND KYLE D. JACOBSON Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 2 of 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 2 I. TAYLOR DOES NOT OFFER ANY OPINION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE JURY........................................................................................................................................... 2 II. TAYLOR IS NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER ANY OPINIONS REGARDING .......................... 4 III. TAYLOR IS NOT QUALFIED TO OFFER ANY OPINIONS REGARDING THE ....................................................... 5 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................... 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....................................................................................................... 9 i  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 3 of 12 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co., 882 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1989)........................................................................................................ 3 Carter v. Full Serv., Inc., 815 N.Y.S.2d 41 (2006).............................................................................................................. 3 Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)......................................................................................... 3 Statutes IRC §170......................................................................................................................................... 6 §501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code ....................................................................................... 6 Rules Fed. R. Evid. 403 ............................................................................................................................ 6 Rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence.............................................................................................. 7 ii  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 4 of 12 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply in support of her Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Gregory B. Taylor and Kyle D. Jacobson (hereinafter “Taylor”). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Ms. Giuffre has moved to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s purported expert Taylor, a certified public accountant, who offers testimony on an olio of subjects wholly unrelated to accounting, ranging from These are among the topics upon which Taylor, as an accountant, is not qualified to opine. See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 1, . More specifically, Ms. Giuffre has correctly explained why Taylor should not be allowed to opine on The remaining opinions offered by Taylor would not be relevant or helpful to the jury, which is why Taylor should be precluded from testifying at all. Defendant has already conceded that Taylor cannot offer any opinions on However, Defendant incorrectly states that Taylor may opine on issues that are exclusively reserved for the jury’s determination, and on subjects on which an accountant has no expertise whatsoever. Taylor is unqualified to opine on 1  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 5 of 12 an opinion that is wholly irrelevant to the cause of action being tried. ARGUMENT I. TAYLOR DOES NOT OFFER ANY OPINION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE JURY. While Taylor’s report concedes that Instead, Taylor provides opinion after opinion for which he lacks expertise. Putting forth these miscellaneous and unqualified opinions necessarily usurps the role of the jury. Taylor contends that Simply put, Taylor’s report lacks explanation or analysis for most, if not all, of his claims. For example, i Furthermore, Taylor lacks any expertise in Notably, Defendant’s response does not proffer any explanation 2  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 6 of 12 as to why an accountant is qualified to testify about issues – such as – that clearly lie in the province of the jury. Indeed, “expert testimony is inadmissible when it addresses ‘lay matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert’s help.’” Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co., 882 F.2d 705, 708 (2d Cir. 1989) (citing cases)). Setting aside the fact that such a determination is far afield of an accountant’s expertise, this is an issue that a jury can resolve, a jury that will also be equipped with the knowledge that To add a veneer of plausibility of her argument, Defendant cites Carter v. Full Serv., Inc., 815 N.Y.S.2d 41, 43 (2006) – a case involving a car accident and a medical doctor providing expert testimony on the cause of the plaintiff’s injured knee. Of course, such specialized testimony is useful to a jury, because it comes from a medical doctor with expertise on the nature of physical injuries. In contrast, Taylor does not offer opinions that fall within the competence of an accountant, such as financial reports and loss/profit ledgers. Instead, he ventures far afield . Such is the stuff of an attorney’s closing argument, not the expert opinion from an accountant of all people. Perhaps recognizing how remote Taylor’s testimony is from his field of expertise, Defendant claims that 3  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 7 of 12 Taylor’s opinions are just a thinly-veiled effort to invade the province of the jury. The Court should exclude Taylor from testifying entirely. II. TAYLOR IS NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER ANY OPINIONS REGARDING Remarkably, Yet Taylor obviously lacks any expertise and his opinions in this area are particularly objectionable. In her response, before offering any explanation as to why an accountant could opine on issues relating to See McCawley Dec. at Composite Exhibit 2, Taylor has absolutely no experience in 4  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 8 of 12 See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 3, And, given Defendant’s own arguments, Taylor should obviously be precluded from testifying on that are far afield from any expertise he might otherwise have. III. TAYLOR IS NOT QUALFIED TO OFFER ANY OPINIONS REGARDING THE Defendant now concedes that Taylor should not be permitted to offer any opinions on Resp. at 6. Such opinions are irrelevant and highly prejudicial and should be excluded. In any event, are wholly irrelevant to the central issue to be tried before the jury: whether Defendant defamed Ms. Giuffre in calling her a liar 5  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 9 of 12 about the sex abuse she experienced at her hands, and how much damage that defamation caused. Defendant’s response fails to offer any rational reason 6  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 10 of 12 Accordingly, Taylor’s opinion regarding appears to be contrary to facts and based on unfounded speculation. There are no grounds for the admission of Taylor’s report or testimony under Rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence. And given the confusion of issues – -- the Court should exclude his unfounded opinions. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that the Court preclude Defendant’s purported experts, Gregory B. Taylor and Kyle D. Jacobson, from offering any expert opinions in this case. Dated: February 9, 2017. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 7  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 11 of 12 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52021 1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. 8  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 12 of 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 9th of February, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: [email protected] [email protected] /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley 9