BALAN

v.

VESTCOR FUND XXII, LTD

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on May 24, 2021, for a pre-trial conference. At the pre-trial conference, the Court addressed the pending motions including Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Stan V. Smith, Ph. D. (Doc. 54; Motion).

For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the Court determined that Dr. Smith’s testimony regarding Plaintiff’s reduction in value of life was due to be excluded. Before reaching a conclusion about the admissibility of the testimony, the Court inquired about a 22-page list appended to Dr. Smith’s Preliminary Report titled “List of Cases Over the Last Four Years wherein Dr. Smith had Testified as of October 28, 2019,” (the “List”).

See Motion at Exhibit¹ (Doc. 54-1).

Specifically, the Court sought clarification on whether the cases on the List represented cases in which Dr. Smith simply gave a deposition, or cases in which a court had occasion to rule on the admissibility of his testimony. Counsel candidly acknowledged not knowing the answer to that specific

question. Upon review of a sampling of the federal court cases on Dr. Smith’s List, the Court found none in which he provided testimony at trial before a United States District Court. Further, the Court’s independent research revealed that

Dr. Smith’s testimony regarding hedonic damages has been found inadmissible by the vast majority of federal courts including some of the cases on his List.¹

Cf. Smith v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., No. 15-CV-1153 SMV/GBW, 2017 WL 3188476, at *5 (D.N.M. July 25, 2017) (permitting Dr. Smith to testify generally about hedonic damages and “the method for calculating them . . .” but declining to allow Dr. Smith to testify as to a dollar amount); Case v. Town of Cicero, No. 10 C 7392, 2013 WL 5645780, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2013) (allowing Dr. Smith to generally explain hedonic damages but prohibiting him from providing a specific dollar amount or methodology to calculate the plaintiff’s hedonic damages).

These findings and the reasoning of the courts excluding Dr. Smith’s testimony on the value of hedonic damages further support the Court’s conclusion that Dr. Smith’s testimony would not be helpful to a jury.

Moreover, the Court continues to be convinced that to the extent Dr. Smith’s testimony has any probative value, it 1s outweighed by the risk that purported expert testimony putting a specific value on the Plaintiff's noneconomic damages will confuse and/or mislead the jury.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Testimony of Plaintiffs Expert Witness Stan V. Smith, Ph. D. (Doc. 54; Motion) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

2. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that Dr. Smith’s testimony regarding the reduction in value of life is excluded.

3. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 26th day of May, 2021.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge

lc28

Copies to:

Counsel of Record