Expert Testimony on Economic Effects of Alcohol Regulations Admitted
Posted on November 14, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Maryland resident Douglas J. Furlong, and two out-of-state breweries, Varietal Beer Company (“Varietal”), and Vortex Brewing Company, LLC (“Vortex”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) challenged the constitutionality of Maryland laws that limit out-of-state breweries’ ability to deliver beer directly to consumers in Maryland.
Defendants, Anthony Brown, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, and Jeffrey A. Kelly, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Maryland Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cannabis Commission (together, “Defendants”) proffered William C. Kerr, Ph.D. (“Dr. Kerr”) as an expert witness.
Plaintiffs sought to preclude Kerr from testifying, contending that any expert testimony must be limited to (1) to whether facts and data show that beer from out-of-state manufacturers poses an actual threat of being unfit for public consumption; and (2) to exclude legal opinions and areas beyond the scope of Kerr’s expertise.
In response, Defendants objected to the proposed testimony from Plaintiffs’ expert Mr. Jim Kuhr.
Economics Expert Witness
William C. Kerr is an economist who serves as Senior Scientist and Scientific Director of the Public Health Institute’s Alcohol Research Group. The Public Health Institute is a non-profit health, equity, and wellness organization that conducts research.
Kerr received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of California-Davis (1997).
Also, he has been involved in researching alcohol use and related public policies for over 25 years.
Brewing Expert Witness
Jim Kuhr is the owner of Catalyst Beverage Consulting, LLC, which offers brewing consulting services to the public and to breweries around the country.
He has 41 years of hands-on experience with beer, breweries, beer delivery and shipping systems, state and federal alcohol regulators, and a broad variety of beer industry practices.
He has worked in various capacities for breweries, brewing associations, and beverage manufacturing and development since 1984 and holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration & Management and an associate’s degree in business.
Discussion by the Court
William Kerr
Kerr’s expert report provides information regarding how “Maryland’s direct beer delivery law promotes the health and safety of Maryland’s consumers and other legitimate state interests.” His report includes opinions regarding the purpose of Maryland’s three-tier system, the purpose and scope of the challenged statutes, the economic impacts of the statutes and limited alcohol delivery, and the negative effects of direct delivery of beer by out-of-state manufacturers.
Basically, Kerr is an economist who has conducted research regarding various states’ public and economic policies pertaining to alcohol. As the parties agreed on the record, Kerr’s proposed expert testimony generally relates to three categories of public health and safety: (1) pure public health concerns; (2) broader public health and safety concerns; and (3) taxation and economic effects of alcohol regulations as related to public health. Some of the proposed expert testimony in Kerr’s report, however, pertains to broad sociological risks or concerns of alcohol consumption, including drunk driving, alcohol-involved crimes, risky sexual behavior, and productivity loss.
Kerr’s testimony will be limited in part
The Court held that Kerr is qualified as an economist to testify to the economic effects of alcohol regulations, including his proffered opinions: (1) about how Maryland’s regulatory scheme promotes orderly market conditions; (2) that permitting out-of-state retailers to ship and sell alcohol that is not routed through Maryland’s regulatory system compromises Maryland tax revenues; (3) that Maryland’s direct beer delivery law protects the health and safety of Maryland’s citizens by precluding the availability of lower cost alcohol; and (4) that increased availability of alcohol leads to increased price competition, lower prices, and higher alcohol consumption.
As explained on the record, these opinions fall squarely within his expertise as an economist who has conducted extensive research of alcohol regulation and policies.
Kerr is also qualified to testify to a limited extent regarding his opinion that Maryland’s direct beer delivery law prevents the sale of beer to underage drinkers and limits the geographic range of a producer’s beer sales by requiring delivery by the producer’s employees. As a result, Kerr may testify to this opinion to the extent that he limits his testimony to the economic effect of the limited geographic range of beer sales.
Kerr is not qualified, however, to testify about broad sociological or societal concerns regarding the use of alcohol.
Although Defendants asserted that Kerr has extensive research experience regarding the social and public health concerns related to alcohol consumption, his education is focused on the economic impact of various alcohol regulations. Accordingly, as explained on the record, he can offer minimal testimony as to his opinion that subjecting alcohol sold to Maryland consumers to Maryland’s higher taxation promotes numerous public and safety objectives.
Jim Kuhr
Kuhr bases his testimony on his personal knowledge and experience, including experience in “industrial scale and craft beer, brewing, packaging, fermentation, blending, product development, quality assurance, food safety, occupational safety, sustainability, and project management.”
To begin with, Kuhr represents that his “expertise ranges from quality, brewhouse, and cellar operations, process improvement, product development, packaging management, occupational and food safety, supply chain, and systems commissioning and optimization.”
Kuhr’s testimony will be limited in part
Defendants specifically objected to Paragraphs 2, 4, 8, and 9 of Kuhr’s expert report on the basis that he was not qualified as an expert on those topics.
First, Paragraph 2 of Kuhr’s report generally stated that the FDA, manufacturer, local or state health agencies, and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) are involved in food safety recalls, and “state alcohol regulatory and law enforcement agencies would not usually play a role.”
Second, Paragraph 4 of his report generally provided that “food safety risks involved in the production of wine mirror those of beer” and “Maryland currently allows the transportation of wine from out of state producers directly to consumers by common carriers.”
Third, Paragraph 8 stated, “the concern for the sale and delivery of beer to minors is the same as with wine. The same rules applied to wine can be used for beer.”
Finally, Paragraph 9 of Kuhr’s report provided “it is my opinion that the Three Tier System of alcohol distribution in the United States is one designed to facilitate the collection of taxes rather than one designed with an eye toward food safety.”
However, Defendants conceded that they did not object to Kuhr’s proposed testimony in Paragraphs 2, 4, and 8 to the extent that he offered such opinions from a product safety standpoint. Plaintiffs agreed that Kuhr is offered only as a food- and product safety expert such that his proffered opinions do not reflect sociological or broad public health and safety opinions.
Moreover, all parties agreed on the record that Kuhr’s proposed opinion in Paragraph 9 of his report regarding the purpose of alcohol regulation systems in the United States is beyond the scope of his expertise and must be excluded.
Held
- The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude certain testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Jim Kuhr.
- The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude the proffered opinions of William Kerr.
Key Takeaway:
Kerr’s testimony regarding the broad public health and safety concerns was excluded. The Court refused to admit any specific or extensive testimony regarding reductions in drunk driving, alcohol-involved crimes and mortality, risky sexual behavior, and lost productivity.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Furlong V. Brown |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cv2045 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Maryland |
| Order Date: | November 10, 2025 |
