United States District Court, D. Kansas
RADIOLOGIX, INC. and RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE IMAGING PARTNERS, INC., Plaintiffs,
RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE, LLC, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
D. Crabtree, United States District Judge
Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, LLC
(“RNM”) has filed a Motion to Exclude the Damage
Opinions of Plaintiffs' Designated Expert Marc Vianello.
Doc. 284. Defendant asserts that the court should exclude Dr.
Vianello's damage opinions under Fed.R.Evid. 702 because,
defendant contends, his opinions “will not help the
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a
fact in issue.” Fed.R.Evid. 702(a). Plaintiffs have
filed a Response opposing defendant's Motion to Exclude.
Doc. 289. And, defendant has filed a Reply. Doc. 293. For
reasons explained below, the court denies defendant's
Motion to Exclude.
lawsuit arises from RNM's termination of a long-term
management service agreement that it had entered with
plaintiffs Radiologix, Inc. (“Radiologix”) and
Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Imaging Partners, Inc.
(“RNMIP”). Plaintiff Radiologix is a national
provider of imaging services based in California. Plaintiff
RNMIP is a wholly owned subsidiary of plaintiff Radiologix.
Radiologix is a wholly owned subsidiary of RadNet Management,
Inc. (“RadNet Management”).
RNM is a Kansas limited liability company whose shareholders
are Kansas licensed physicians who provide radiology or
radiation oncology services at hospitals and clinics in
northeast Kansas, including Topeka.
2002, plaintiffs and defendant executed an Amended and
Restated Service Agreement (“the Agreement”).
Under the Agreement, plaintiffs agreed to provide certain
management services to defendant in exchange for specified
fees. The parties agreed to a 40-year term for the
Agreement's duration. But, in 2014, defendant terminated
the Agreement for cause because, defendant contends,
plaintiffs had defaulted materially in performing their
obligations under the Agreement.
response, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit. They assert three
claims: (1) breach of contract, (2) conversion, and (3)
unjust enrichment. Defendant responded to plaintiffs'
Complaint by asserting a Counterclaim for breach of contract.
support plaintiffs' claims against defendant, plaintiffs
have designated Marc Vianello as an expert witness to provide
testimony about the damages plaintiffs allegedly sustained
from defendant's termination of the Agreement. Defendant
asks the court to exclude Mr. Vianello's opinions
because, it contends, they are inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid.
702. The court considers defendant's request below.
court has a “gatekeeping obligation” to determine
the admissibility of expert testimony. Kumho Tire Co. v.
Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999) (citing Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589
(1993)). When performing this gatekeeping role, the court has
broad discretion when deciding whether to admit expert
testimony. Kieffer v. Weston Land, Inc., 90
F.3d 1496, 1499 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Orth v. Emerson
Elec. Co., 980 F.2d 632, 637 (10th Cir. 1992)). The
admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule
of Evidence 702. It provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the ...