- 21 -
Respondent objects to the admissibility of Mr. Ostrove’s
report on the ground that Mr. Ostrove is not an expert with
respect to compensation matters. Alternatively, respondent
argues that, if admitted into evidence, Mr. Ostrove’s report
should be given no weight. In light of Mr. Ostrove’s obvious
lack of training or experience in the field of executive
compensation, we are inclined to agree with respondent that Mr.
Ostrove’s report is inadmissible because it is not the testimony
of an “expert” within the meaning of rule 702 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence.3 We find it unnecessary, however, to so rule
because we find the report to be inadmissible on the ground that
it was not “based upon sufficient facts or data”, and on the
further ground that Mr. Ostrove did not apply “principles and
methods [for determining the reasonableness of Mrs. Harrison’s
compensation] reliably to the facts of the case” as required by
rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
3 Fed. R. Evid. 702 provides:
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand
the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form
of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is
based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony
is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods
reliably to the facts of the case.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011