Harris v. Koenig
815 F. Supp. 2d 6
D.D.C.2011Background
- Harris v. Koenig is a DC District Court ERISA-related action; June 27, 2011 memorandum addresses a Rule 702 motion to exclude Saul Solomon's expert testimony.
- Plaintiffs seek damages for prudence failures in Waste Management retirement plans; Solomon produced an alternative-investment-based damages calculation for the Old Waste Plan.
- Defendants move to exclude Solomon’s testimony on reliability and relevance under Rule 702, arguing improper methodology and unsupported assumptions.
- Solomon compares plan losses from imprudent Waste Management stock to two alternative investments (Vanguard 500 Index and Wellington Income Fund) and tests multiple loss scenarios.
- The court must determine if Solomon’s report is sufficiently reliable and relevant to be admitted, with cross-examination addressing assumptions possible at trial.
- The court denies theMotion to Exclude, concluding Solomon’s report is reliable and relevant under Rule 702.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Solomon's report reliable under Rule 702? | Solomon uses reliable principles and sufficient data; test is an accepted damages method. | Alternative-investment method is improper or unreliable for this case. | Yes; Solomon's report is reliable. |
| Is Solomon's report relevant under Rule 702? | Report assists trier of fact by illustrating potential loss formulas and damages. | Report does not fit the issues or help determine damages. | Yes; Solomon's report is relevant. |
| Is the use of the alternative-investment test by Solomon reasonable in this ERISA case? | Alternative-investment method is an appropriate measure in prudence-damage analysis. | Not the best or most appropriate in context; concerns about assumptions. | Yes; not unreasonable; admissible under 702. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 1999) (engenders flexible gatekeeping for expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (establishes admissibility standards for expert testimony)
- Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129 (D.C.Cir.1996) (limits gatekeeping to exclude speculative testimony)
- Donovan v. Bierwirth, 754 F.2d 1049 (2d Cir.1985) (alternative-investment damages recognized in ERISA context)
- Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., 496 F.3d 291 (3d Cir.2007) (measure of damages under prudence standard relates to prudently invested accounts)
- Evans v. Akers, 534 F.3d 65 (1st Cir.2008) (damages can be calculated by comparing imprudent to prudent investments)
- Miller v. Bill Harbert Int'l Constr., Inc., 608 F.3d 871 (D.C.Cir.2010) (illustrates broad discretion in admitting expert testimony)