Both the plaintiff and the defendant had hired valuation experts. Legal counsel for the plaintiff hired SP&H on a confidential basis to provide litigation-consulting services in an effort to strengthen his case and determine weaknesses in the defendant's case.

SP&H's Support Services

Since both sides had already retained experts and legal counsel did not intend to name SP&H as a rebuttal expert, SP&H's function was focused on identifying strengths and weaknesses in both experts' analyses and assisting legal counsel in preparation for litigation.

SP&H's Work Included:

• Review both experts' reports
• Review both experts' case files
• Preparation of counsel for defending the deposition of their expert
• Preparation of deposition questions for counsel for the opposing expert
• Review depositions of both experts
• Assist counsel in identifying potential Motions in Limine
• Assist counsel in preparing arguments in Motions in Limine
• Wrote memoranda of case issues for trial and Motions in Limine
• Assist counsel with potential cross-examination and direct-examination of experts

The Outcome

Working in tandem with SP&H, legal counsel was effective in persuading the Court during Motions in Limine that the defendant's expert witness report for business damages should not be admitted due to: (1) the defendant would have received a "double-recovery" because the recovery would have overlapped with compensation the defendant was otherwise claiming; and (2) the defendant did not meet the statutory requirement proving that the damages were caused by the actions of the plaintiff.

For more information on this case see "Court of Appeal Determines Entitlement to Compensation Must be Decided by Judge, not Jury."