- 51 -
dollars. Here, again, relying on rules 401 and 402 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence, respondent’s objections appear to go
more to the probative weight than the admissibility of these
documents. Therefore, respondent’s objections are overruled.
C. Documents Prepared for Litigation
Respondent objects to certain documents prepared for
purposes of this litigation on the grounds that they are hearsay
and irrelevant. These documents consist of materials prepared
and supplied to petitioners’ expert Ernst & Young LLP (Ernst &
Young) to assist in the preparation of its expert report. The
documents in question consist of various summaries of the Hyatt
International group data including expenses, sales, guests, and
employees.
One of the significant distinctions between expert and fact
witnesses is that experts are permitted to rely on evidence
outside the trial record. The evidence outside the record may be
hearsay and need not be otherwise admissible, but they may be
used by the expert to formulate an opinion. See Fed. R. Evid.
703.
Rules 702 and 703 [Fed. R. Evid.] do not, however,
permit the admission of materials, relied on by an
expert witness, for the truth of the matters they
contain if the materials are otherwise inadmissible.
See Paddack v. Dave Christensen, Inc., 745 F.2d 1254,
1261-62 (9th Cir. 1984). Rather, “Rule 703 [Fed. R.
Evid.] merely permits such hearsay, or other
inadmissible evidence, upon which an expert properly
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011