---
title: "Accounting Expert Witness’ Opinions About the Unpaid Consulting Fees Excluded"
meta:
  "og:description": "Accounting expert witness failed to allocate a royalty based on Plaintiffs’ copyrights specifically"
  "og:title": "Accounting Expert Witness’ Opinions About the Unpaid Consulting Fees Excluded"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "Accounting expert witness failed to allocate a royalty based on Plaintiffs’ copyrights specifically"
---

# Accounting Expert Witness’ Opinions About the Unpaid Consulting Fees Excluded

Posted on February 27, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler

In early 2015, Plaintiffs, US Thrillrides, LLC  (“USTR”) and Polercoaster, LLC began discussions with Defendant, Intamin Amusement Rides Int. Corp. Est. about partnering to build Polercoasters for Plaintiffs’ customers. The  “Polercoaster” is “a roller coaster that is supported or suspended from a vertical tower instead of moving along a horizontal track.”

This case arises from a project to build a roller coaster at the Dubai Hills Mall. The developer of the Dubai Project, Emaar Entertainment LLC, originally entered into a Letter of Acceptance (“LOA”) agreement with Plaintiff US Thrillrides LLC (“USTR”) relating to the Dubai Project. However, Emaar ultimately terminated that agreement and contracted with Defendant to build a different roller coaster. 

Basically, Plaintiffs filed claim for breach of the Confidentiality Non-Disclosure Agreement (“CNDA”) insofar as it is based on unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ copyrights by Defendant and Plaintiff Polercoaster LLC’s (“Polercoaster”) copyright infringement claim.

Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ damages expert, [Eric Lee](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Eric-Lee/1562901) while Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert, [Dr. Keith Ugone](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Keith-Ugone/1532248).

## **Accounting Expert Witness**

[Eric Lee](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Eric-Lee/1562901) is a financial and fraud expert with over 20 years of experience. He is a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) and Certified Insolvency and Restructuring Advisor (CIRA) and has a bachelor of science degree in accounting from Arizona State University.

Also, Lee has spent the last 15+ years in litigation, forensic and bankruptcy consulting, including the quantification of complex financial damages, lost profits, class action litigation, fraud investigations, reconstruction of financial records, corporate internal investigations, funds tracing, and other financial analyses.

[Get the full story on challenges to Eric Lee’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/login?eId=1562901) 

## **Economics Expert Witness**

[Dr. Keith R. Ugone](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Keith-Ugone/1532248) has provided economic and damages consulting services in antitrust cases, breach of contract cases, business interruption cases, class action certification matters, employment / loss of earnings cases, intellectual property cases, lender liability cases, professional negligence cases, and securities-related cases, among others.

Moreover, he specializes in the application of economic principles to complex business disputes and generally is retained in cases requiring economic analyses and/or damages-related analyses.

[Want to know more about the challenges Keith Ugone has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/login?eId=1532248) 

## **Discussion by the Court**

#### **Eric Lee**

Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the breach of the CNDA due to unauthorized use of copyrights and copyright infringement. Lee’s expert opinions relate to actual damages, which are recoverable for both causes of action.

As is typical with damages expert opinions, Lee assumed that Plaintiffs will prevail on their substantive claims and that Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of actual damages. With those assumptions in place, Lee calculated the amount of damages that he opined would be appropriate.

Basically, Lee calculated two types of damages: (1) lost profits from consulting fees and royalty fees that Plaintiffs would have earned had the LOA not been terminated and their participation in the Dubai Project been completed; and (2) a reasonable royalty for the misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property.

#### **_Lost Profits_**

Plaintiffs have not and cannot prove that Defendant caused the termination of the LOA or the end of Plaintiffs’ involvement in the Dubai Project. Multiple representatives involved in the decision to terminate Emaar’s relationship with Plaintiffs made clear that they would have chosen to have no roller coaster at the Dubai Hills Mall before they would have continued their relationship with Plaintiffs.

Therefore, the Court held that Lee’s opinions as to the amount of lost profits—i.e., the unpaid consulting fees and royalty contemplated under the LOA—will be excluded because Plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of such damages.

#### _**Reasonable Royalty**_

Lee’s opinions involve the calculation of a reasonable royalty for all of the intellectual property, confidential information, and trade secrets that Plaintiffs alleged were misappropriated or infringed in this case combined.

However, Lee did not break down the analysis by type of intellectual property or information. As relevant here, Lee’s opinions did not allocate a reasonable royalty to the use of Plaintiffs’ copyrights, specifically.

Without any basis to parse the damages allocated to copyright infringement—as opposed to patents, trade secrets, or confidential information which are no longer at issue—Lee’s opinions would only serve to confuse the jury.

The Court held that Lee’s opinions regarding the reasonable royalty, which do not allocate a royalty based on Plaintiffs’ copyrights specifically, must be excluded.

#### **Keith Ugone**

Plaintiffs sought to exclude the expert testimony of Defendant’s expert, Dr. Keith Ugone. As indicated by Defendant, Ugone is purely a rebuttal expert, offering a critique of Lee’s damages opinions. Because Lee’s opinions are being excluded, the Court held that Ugone’s opinions are no longer relevant and will also be excluded.

## **Held**

1. The Court granted Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony ofEric Lee.

2. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Keith Ugone’s Testimony.

## **Key Takeaway**:

To begin with, an expert’s offered opinion and the facts of the case must be an appropriate fit. There is no fit where a large analytical leap must be made between the facts and the opinion.

The Court excluded Lee’s opinions regarding the reasonable royalty because there is simply no “fit” between the facts remaining at issue in this case and the opinions rendered.

Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

[Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness is not Qualified to Opine as to the Copyright Infringement Analysis Itself](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/mechanical-engineering-expert-witness-is-not-qualified-to-opine-as-to-the-copyright-infringement-analysis-itself)

## **Case Details:**

---

## **You Might Also Like**

![Intellectual Property Expert&#39;s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T205412.117.jpg) [**Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/accounting-expert-witness-opinions-about-the-unpaid-consulting-fees-excluded/intellectual-property-experts-opinion-on-misappropriation-excluded)![Automotive Industry Expert&#39;s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T191143.335.jpg) [**Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/accounting-expert-witness-opinions-about-the-unpaid-consulting-fees-excluded/automotive-industry-experts-testimony-on-pricing-practices-excluded)![Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T160600.039.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/accounting-expert-witness-opinions-about-the-unpaid-consulting-fees-excluded/consumer-credit-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-mixed-files)![Appraisal Expert&#39;s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T194055.299.jpg) [**Appraisal Expert’s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/accounting-expert-witness-opinions-about-the-unpaid-consulting-fees-excluded/appraisal-experts-testimony-on-deceptiveness-excluded)![Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T153456.164.jpg) [**Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/accounting-expert-witness-opinions-about-the-unpaid-consulting-fees-excluded/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)