Howard v. Tanium, Inc., 3:21-cv-09703

Plaintiff Daniel Howard sued his former employer, Tanium, Inc., alleging fraudulent inducement regarding the value of stock compensation offered when he left Fortinet to join Tanium in 2016.
The dispute centers around conflicting valuations of Tanium RSUs: Howard claims he was told shares were valued at $5 each (allegedly based on preferred stock), while an independent 409A valuation put common stock at $2.01 per share.
Howard left Fortinet, forfeiting unvested RSUs and access to an Employee Stock Purchase Program; he now seeks damages for lost compensation.
Both parties offered and challenged expert testimony on stock and compensation valuation, leading to multiple Daubert motions to exclude or limit expert reports under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
The court evaluated whether each expert's testimony was based on reliable principles and methods, and whether it would assist the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Cohen’s valuation opinions	Cohen reasonably relied on 409A report for $2.01/share	Cohen’s methods/data were unreliable and not independently analyzed	Cohen may testify on stock rights, not on specific valuations or $2.01/share
Admissibility of Allman’s damages calculations	Allman’s calculations are reasonable expert analysis	Allman’s stock valuation date arbitrary, methodologies unreliable	Allman’s report excluded
Admissibility of Beaton’s rebuttal/employment opinions	Beaton lacks basis for employment duration opinions	Beaton’s expertise qualifies him for compensation/valuation opinions	Beaton excluded on employment duration, admissible on value rebuttal
Admissibility of Wagner’s rebuttal/tax analysis	Wagner’s opinion on 409A/tax is responsive, based on facts	Wagner misinterpreted documents, exceeded rebuttal scope, irrelevant	Wagner excluded on tax law/Shareworks, admissible on 409A rebuttal

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes standards for admissibility of expert testimony)
United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160 (trial courts have broad discretion in gatekeeping expert evidence)
Lazar v. Superior Ct., 12 Cal. 4th 631 (damage awards in fraud cases can include benefit-of-the-bargain)
Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc., 24 Cal. App. 4th 555 (damages measured as of the date of fraud discovery)
Mozzetti v. City of Brisbane, 67 Cal. App. 3d 565 (speculative damages cannot support recovery)
Kennedy v. Collagen Corp., 161 F.3d 1226 (differences in expert reliability go to weight, not admissibility)