Admitting Foreign Law Experts: Navigating Rule 44.1 in Court
Posted on March 3, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
The case centered on a dispute over property ownership in Cuba. The Plaintiff relied on the testimony of Avelino Gonzalez, an expert in Cuban law, to establish their claim. The Defendants, however, challenged the admissibility of Gonzalez’s testimony on multiple grounds.
Law And Legal Expert Witness
Avelino Gonzalez is an attorney with a Summa Cum Laude Bachelor of Law degree from the University of Havana, Cuba, and 35 years of experience in Cuban Law.
Discussion by the Court
Challenges to the Expert’s Testimony
The Defendants launched a multi-pronged attack on Gonzalez’s testimony, primarily arguing that:
Improper Use of Expert Opinion
The Defendants claimed the Plaintiff was improperly using Gonzalez’s opinions to establish disputed facts, arguing Gonzalez lacked personal knowledge of those facts.
Reliance on Inadmissible Hearsay
They asserted that Gonzalez relied on inadmissible hearsay, particularly a history book and family member accounts, to form his opinions regarding the Plaintiff’s inheritance claim.
Improper Application of Foreign Law
The Defendants objected to Gonzalez’s ability to opine on the application of Cuban law to the specific facts of the case.
Invasion of the Jury’s Province
They argued that Gonzalez’s testimony would improperly invade the jury’s role in determining factual matters.
Unreliable Facts and Rule 703 Violation
They contested the reliability of Gonzalez’s sources, especially the history book, and argued a violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 703.
The Court’s Observations and Rulings:
The Court, however, rejected the Defendants’ arguments and ruled that Gonzalez’s testimony was admissible. Key points from the Court’s observations include:
Rule 44.1 Flexibility
The Court emphasized the flexibility granted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, which allows courts to consider “any relevant material or source, including testimony,” when determining foreign law.
Broad Scope of Admissible Evidence
The Court noted that Rule 44.1 is not constrained by traditional rules of evidence, such as Rule 703 or limitations on hearsay. Thus foreign law experts can use a wide range of documents and sources.
Court’s Role in Determining Foreign Law
The Court highlighted that determining foreign law is its responsibility, not the jury’s.
Premature Objections
The Court deemed some objections premature, stating that it would address the parameters of Gonzalez’s testimony and the weight to be afforded to his opinions after reviewing the parties’ motions for summary judgment.
Cross-Examination as a Safeguard
The Court acknowledged the Defendants’ right to cross-examine Gonzalez to challenge his testimony and raise objections.
Held
The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Avelino Gonzalez.
Key Takeaway:
This case underscores the unique treatment of expert testimony on foreign law in U.S. courts. Rule 44.1 provides significant flexibility, allowing experts to rely on a broad range of materials and sources. While challenges to such testimony are common, courts prioritize their role in determining foreign law and rely on cross-examination to ensure fairness.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Echevarria V. Expedia, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 1:19cv22620 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Florida Southern |
| Order Date: | February 28, 2025 |
