Buckley v. Deloitte & Touche USA LLP, 888 F. Supp. 2d 404

DVI, a healthcare equipment financing company, was audited by Deloitte from 1999–2002; Buckley, as DVI’s bankruptcy trustee, sues for professional malpractice, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.
Deloitte terminated its relationship with DVI in June 2003 amid disputes over DVI’s May 2003 review status and alleged incomplete auditing.
DVI faced liquidity issues and a “death spiral” related to collateral, equity, and financing constraints, with Fleet and Merrill Lynch as major warehouse lenders and securitization funding tied to collateral levels.
Buckley contends Deloitte’s alleged audit misstatements about DVI’s loan loss reserve contributed to DVI’s collapse and bankruptcy.
Deloitte moves for summary judgment and to exclude Epstein’s expert report; the court excludes Epstein’s report for lack of factual foundation and reliable methodology.
The court grants summary judgment in Deloitte’s favor, finding no admissible evidence that Deloitte’s conduct caused DVI’s injuries.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Buckley have standing to sue for DVI’s damages?	Buckley sues as DVI trustee seeking relief to DVI, not creditors.	Buckley lacks standing to recover creditors’ damages.	Buckley has standing to seek relief for DVI (not creditors).
Is Epstein’s expert testimony admissible to prove causation?	Epstein shows how Deloitte’s disclosure could have changed DVI’s fate.	Epstein’s opinions are speculative and lack reliable methodology/factual basis.	Epstein’s report excluded; not admissible evidence.
Did Deloitte’s conduct causally cause DVI’s collapse?	Non-disclosure of loan-loss reserve misstated; would have prevented death spiral.	Causes far too attenuated; many intervening factors; no proximate causation.	No genuine triable issue; Deloitte not liable.
Are Buckley’s breach-of-contract theories viable?	Deloitte’s withdrawal breached pre-existing duties.	No causal link shown between withdrawal and DVI’s damages; insufficient proof.	No evidence supporting breach of contract claim.

Boucher v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 73 F.3d 18 (2d Cir. 1996) (Daubert-type admissibility and speculative expert testimony limitations)
Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., 542 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2008) (Daubert gatekeeping; expert testimony must be reliable and testable)
General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (expert opinion must be grounded in fact and not speculative)
Drabkin v. Alexander Grant & Co., 905 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (causation in professional liability cases requires more than speculative postulate)
Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005) (tested methodology and verifiability required for expert opinions)