Mo Pow 3 LLC v. Crypto Infiniti LLC, 1:22-cv-00155

This case arises out of two failed agreements for hosting digital currency mining equipment between Mo Pow 3/4, LLC (Plaintiffs) and Crypto Infiniti, LLC (Defendant).
The first agreement between Mo Pow 3 and Crypto Infiniti was ended by Mo Pow; the second agreement between Mo Pow 4 and Crypto Infiniti was ended by Crypto Infiniti, both allegedly without justification.
The court previously found both parties breached their respective agreements and that Mo Pow 4 was entitled to damages but needed expert analysis to determine the amount.
Mo Pow 4 retained expert David Hall to assess lost profit damages; Crypto Infiniti moved to strike Hall's report, arguing it was unreliable due to his use of a Texas site for his calculations instead of the Missouri site specified in the contract.
Mo Pow 4 argued that relocation to Texas would have occurred due to Crypto's nonperformance and that the use of the Texas site was reasonable.
The matter is before the court on Crypto Infiniti’s motion to strike Hall’s expert report.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should Hall’s expert report be stricken for using the Texas site instead of Missouri?	Hall’s assumptions about relocation to Texas were reasonable given the facts and contract terms.	The use of Texas instead of Missouri was done to inflate damages and was not supported by contract; thus, renders the report unreliable.	Use of Texas site was a permissible expert assumption; goes to weight, not admissibility; motion denied.
Did Hall rely on sufficient facts/data and proper methodology?	Hall used accepted AICPA principles and sufficient documentation.	Methodology and application were unreliable due to data from the Texas site and missing assumptions.	Methodology and data were sufficient under Rule 702; disputes go to weight, not admissibility.
Was Mo Pow’s late disclosure of Texas-site documents justified?	Documents became relevant only during expert analysis and were promptly disclosed afterward.	Late disclosure was prejudicial and should prevent use of the evidence.	Late disclosure was substantially justified in light of procedural history and court orders.
Is the expert qualified under Rule 702?	Hall is qualified (credentials and extensive experience).	No specific challenge.	Hall is qualified under Rule 702.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court sets standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Expands Daubert to all expert testimony, not just scientific)
Taylor v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 130 F.3d 1395 (District courts have broad discretion in expert admissibility)
Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212 (Challenges to expert assumptions go to weight, not admissibility)
United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234 (Review of expert admissibility is deferential to district courts)