- 14 -
Risk Management Association (RMA) Annual Statement Studies 1998-
1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001, and the Methodology/Disclaimer
from the October 1, 2001, Database of the Executive Compensation
Assessor software and database published by the Economic Research
Institute (ERI). Respondent objects to petitioner’s request
because petitioner did not indicate which RMA studies it wanted
the Court to take judicial notice of, and the information
contained in both the RMA and ERI materials does not meet the
criteria under rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and this
Court’s jurisprudence.
Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not
subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1)
generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the
trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready
determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned.
See also Estate of Reis v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1016, 1026-1027
(1986).
These materials were relied on by both parties’ experts to
form their respective opinions. We have heard the testimony of
both experts and have reviewed their respective reports,
including the materials in issue, which were attached to the
expert reports. The experts relied on these materials, but they
bolstered their opinions with facts other than those considered
in producing these materials. Each expert testified, and his
respective opinion was subject to cross-examination. While an
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011