District Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re ( 49 ) Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert James Mills by Sofradim Production SAS in case 1:22-cv-10153-PBS. The court denies the eleventh motion 49 . This final motion concerns James Mills, a forensic economist with Robert W. Johnson & Associates, whom the Plaintiffs proffer to testify that "Medtronic is a profitable, financially sturdy company that can meet its financial obligations while retaining sufficient funds to pay any punitive damages award the jury might plausibly return." See 91 at 3 (proffer); see also [55-32] at 5, 9-23 (April 18, 2025, letter: "Medtronic is a growing entity...;" slideshow identifying Medtronic's revenue, net income, net worth, cash on hand, cash flow, capital expenditures, free cash flow, dividends paid, stock repurchases, research and development expenditures, undrawn lines of credit, stock market valuation, audit fees, Chief Executive Officer compensation and severance); [55-34] (July 19, 2025, letter: "Medtronic continues to be a growing entity...;" slideshow).
District Judge Saris will determine how the trial will proceed. This court merely rejects the Defendants' arguments that Mr. Mills' anticipated testimony should be excluded as unfairly prejudicial and that it will usurp the role of the jury, see 50 at 13-16, given the ability to mitigate such concerns through, for example, bifurcation. See 91 at 2 (the Plaintiffs' acknowledgment that Mr. Mills' testimony would be offered at a bifurcated proceeding on punitive damages); 110 at 5 n. 5 (the Defendants' agreement that if the court does not preclude Mr. Mills from testifying, his testimony should be offered at a bifurcated proceeding on the amount after, and only if, the jury finds that punitive damages should be awarded); see also 225 at 14 (pretrial memorandum).
The court is not persuaded by the Defendants' argument that Mr. Mills applied no methodology, see 50 at 10, an argument belied by the Defendants' further argument that the specific metrics Mr. Mills weighed (i.e. a methodology) are poor indicators of financial condition, see id. at 13-14. The alleged irrelevance of the chosen metrics can be explored on cross-examination.
Nor is the court persuaded that Mr. Mills should be precluded from testifying because he interprets publicly available data that a layperson could interpret just as readily. See In re 3M Combat Arms Earplug Prods. Liab. Litig., #3:19-md-2885-MCR, 2021 WL 830309, at *7 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2021) (rejecting similar arguments regarding anticipated testimony of Mr. Mills' partner: "[W]hile it is true that [Robert] Johnson's report is largely based on data found in Defendant's public financial disclosures, the Court concludes the report is much more than a mere regurgitation of factual information and that the information contained in it would not be easily understood by the average citizen. Per his report, Johnson reviewed several years of 3M's annual statements (Form 10-K), quarterly reports (Form 10-Q), the 2020 Proxy Statement, and stock market data from the Wall Street Journal, and he summarized his findings in the form of a PowerPoint presentation. Financial literacy at that high a level, and specifically in the context of large multinational corporations, is not a common skill possessed by the average person or juror.... Additionally, condensing and summarizing multiple sources of financial data, which can often be voluminous in length, would also be helpful to the jurors... ") (citations omitted).
The Defendants' argument that the jury will be confused by Mr. Mills' use of companywide, not hernia-mesh product, metrics and that a mini-trial will result when the Defendants counter with unidentified "contextual[]" evidence is inadequately developed. See 50 at 14.
Lastly, if the Defendants have grounds to argue that Mr. Mills is testifying to "explanations" not adequately disclosed in his reports or at his deposition, see 110 at 5 n. 4, the argument should be made at trial. See 99522 additional result(s)