--- title: "Hospitality Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Food Safety Regulations" meta: "og:description": "The hospitality expert was precluded from testifying because he lacked expertise or knowledge in the area of food safety regulations or standards" "og:title": "Hospitality Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Food Safety Regulations" author: "Shuva Guha Thakurta" description: "The hospitality expert was precluded from testifying because he lacked expertise or knowledge in the area of food safety regulations or standards" --- # Hospitality Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Food Safety Regulations Posted on August 3, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta Plaintiff Eritrean Association in Greater Seattle (“EAGS”) is the “largest Eritrean-American community organization in the Pacific Northwest.” Its primary means of fundraising is through Eritrean themed festival events which raise money to “support community services for Eritrean immigrants and refugees in the Greater Seattle area, including language classes, immigration assistance, health outreach, and cultural programming.” The events giving rise to this lawsuit arose at one such community event in 2023. EAGS coordinated with the city of Tacoma, Washington to plan its 49th annual festival, scheduled for August 4–6, 2023. Isaac Araya, EAGS’s Executive Director, observed a group of what he predicts were 150 people marching toward the festival perimeter at around 5:45 A.M., before the festival was set to open at 10:00 A.M. Araya declares that protesters broke through EAGS’ traffic diversion equipment and other blockades to entrance, including a six-foot-tall chain link fence. Araya declared that protesters broke through EAGS’ traffic diversion equipment and other blockades to entrance, including a six-foot-tall chain link fence. Defendants are thirteen “activists, political protesters, and journalists” that are part of the Eritrean diaspora. They stated that they attended the festival in 2023 to protest and raise awareness about the abuses of the Eritrean government. Defendants filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of [Daniel C. Quintero](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Daniel-Quintero/1577578) and [Joe Essa](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Joseph-Essa/1578048). ![Hospitality Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Food Safety Regulations](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X4802.webp) ## Finance Expert Witness [Daniel C. Quintero](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Daniel-Quintero/1577578) specializes in financial and economic engineering, specifically as it relates to commercial litigation. His primary experience in the last 20 years is as a partner of venture capital funds. He holds degrees from UC Berkeley and the Haas School of Business. [Discover more cases with Daniel Quintero as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1577578&pId=3). ## **Hospitality Expert Witness** [Joseph C. Essa](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Joseph-Essa/1578048) is the Founder and CEO of MKM Hospitality Group and is a seasoned restaurant and hospitality executive with 35 years of high-level experience in the food business. [Want to know more about the challenges Joseph Essa has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1578048&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### **A. Quintero's Opinions** Defendants argued that Quintero's opinions should be excluded because (1) he is not qualified, (2) his testimony does not apply specialized knowledge to the facts of the case, and (3) his report did not meet the disclosure requirements of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26). #### _1. He is not qualified_ The Court is skeptical that Quintero's general economics and financial experience render him qualified to opine on damages in this matter. It is unclear whether the "expert damages models" Quintero has created in the past bear any relation to the types of damages asserted in this case. Also, the subject areas he has offered expert opinions about—"corporate governance, data analytics, shareholder class action, valuation, financial institutions, intellectual property, and real estate with economic litigation"—do not appear to have any relation to the types of damages asserted in this case. #### _2. His testimony does not apply specialized knowledge to the facts of the case_ However, even assuming Quintero is qualified, his opinions are unreliable because he does not explain the methodology by which he arrived at his damages calculations. Based on this purported methodology, Quintero determined, for example, that EAGS suffered $530,122 in lost ticket sales (based on "benchmark data" from Eritrean festivals in Washington D.C. and Dallas and "historical attendance data" from the "Seattle Eritrean Independence Day event"), $693,270 in lost food and beverage sales, and $358,887 in "security and law enforcement response." Quintero's opinion includes predicted losses that are even further afield, such as a projected losses for "at least four future events," a "significant drop in grant revenues" and the need for a "Crisis PR Firm Retainer" to "counteract the narrative of political manipulation and to restore EAGS's credibility with funders, partners, and the public." Absent from this methodology is any explanation whatsoever of how Quintero used this information in some objective, testable way to arrive at his opinions regarding Plaintiff's losses. Put differently, there is no way for the Court to look at the methodology, then look at the damages calculations, and "assess Quintero's opinion for reliability." Quintero's damages calculations are also not supported by underlying data. Here, Quintero's calculations of forecasted food and beverage sales appear to be untethered to the underlying data. To illustrate: EAGS projected it would sell 8,000 adult food plates at $90 per plate and 12,000 beverages at $27 per unit. However, according to the spreadsheet, EAGS ended up selling 2,392 adult food plates at $15 per plate and 10,060 beverages at $3 per unit. As pointed out by Defendants, not only does Quintero fail to explain how these projected prices and sales were calculated, he also does not explain why his calculation for lost food and beverage sales incorporates prices that were not actually implemented at the festival. In short, there is "simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion offered." #### _3. His report did not meet the disclosure requirements of Rule 26_ Finally, Defendants argued that Quintero's opinions should be excluded for violating [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26) because Plaintiff did not include a list of Quintero's publications, nor did it properly identify Quintero's prior testimonial experience. Here, Quintero's original expert disclosure did not include the required information about his prior publication or testimonial experience, as laid out in Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(iv) and (v). This information appears to have been provided for the first time in an email from Plaintiff's counsel dated February 11, 2026—more than three months after the expert disclosure deadline. Even if the Court finds the deficient disclosure was harmless or substantially justified, Plaintiff offered no justification for its failure to fully comply with Rule 26(a) from the outset. ### **B. Essa's Opinions** #### _1. Essa is not a qualified expert on Washington food safety requirements_ First, Defendants argued that Essa is not a qualified expert on Washington food safety requirements, because his background "reflects hospitality operations leadership and board roles" rather than scientific experience, and because he does not claim to have any specific knowledge of Washington food regulations. Here, though Essa has 35 years of experience leading global restaurant brands and consumer facing food businesses, his experience appears to be exclusively on the business side of the food and beverage industry. #### _2. Essa's citations in his initial expert disclosure to Washington Administrative Code regulations are "blatantly incorrect"_ Second, Defendants argued that Essa's citations in his initial expert disclosure to Washington Administrative Code regulations are "blatantly incorrect." This, too, goes to reliability—these citations would not be helpful to a jury in understanding the food safety concerns raised by Plaintiff following the August 5 protest because they do not exist. Further, the attempts by Plaintiff to provide corrected citations to Washington regulatory provisions have been stricken because they are inconsistent with Essa's original expert disclosure; the Court therefore does not consider them. #### _3. Essa' report is not supported by underlying facts or data_ Third, Defendants argued that Essa' report is not supported by underlying facts or data because Plaintiff failed to include the exhibits reviewed by Essa in its expert disclosure. Essa did not produce the documents he relied on in forming his expert opinion in either his original expert disclosure or amended disclosure, though Plaintiff states "most" of the exhibits were produced in discovery. There are two separate reasons for excluding Essa's opinion on these grounds. First, the documents Essa apparently relied upon are labeled imprecisely. Even if these documents were produced in discovery, their titles in Essa's report are unhelpful—and therefore his expert disclosure is unreliable—because there is no way to confirm based on the document descriptions what information they contain or where they may be located. Second, the failure to provide the documents is inconsistent with the spirit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)(iii), which requires the party proffering expert testimony to provide "any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support" the expert's opinions. In the Court's mind, the justification underlying Rule 26(a)(2)(B) is to allow the opposing party to understand the expert's qualifications and the basis for their opinions such that they may depose the expert, offer a rebuttal expert, or attack the expert's opinion in a Daubert motion such as this. Vaguely referring to documents, as Plaintiff did here, and stating "[m]ost" of them were produced in discovery, does not give Defendants the opportunity to understand what Essa reviewed in formulating his opinion. #### _4. Essa's expert disclosure did not include information about his past publications or testimonial experience_ Finally, Defendants argued that Plaintiff violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) because Essa's expert disclosure did not include information about his past publications or testimonial experience. Essa's disclosure does not include the information required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), namely, "a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years" and "a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert." As with the missing information from Quintero's report, the information missing from Essa's report appears to have been provided in an email from Plaintiff's counsel in February 2026, several months past the expert disclosure deadline. Plaintiff again did not explain why it failed to fully comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) initially. Such a failure also provides a basis for exclusion of Essa's opinion. ## **Held** The Court granted Defendants' motion to exclude to exclude the expert testimony of Daniel C. Quintero and Joe Essa. ## **Key Takeaway** While an expert's experience can provide the basis for their qualifications, nothing about Essa's experience indicates he has any expertise or knowledge in the area of food safety regulations or standards that would be helpful to a jury. In acting in its role as a gatekeeper, the Court is not satisfied that Essa's opinion, used as intended by Plaintiff, meets the reliability requirements of [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.). ## **Case Details:** | Case Caption: | Eritrean Ass**ociation** of Greater Seattle v. Gebrekidan | | --- | --- | | Docket Number: | 3:24cv5517 | | Court Name: | United States District Court for the Western District of Washington | | Order Date: | July 31, 2026 | --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Dermatology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on DMDM-induced Dermatitis](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_03T200114_366.webp) [**Dermatology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on DMDM-induced Dermatitis**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/hospitality-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-food-safety-regulations/dermatology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-dmdm-induced-dermatitis)![Hospitality Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Food Safety Regulations](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X4802.webp) [**Hospitality Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Food Safety Regulations**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/hospitality-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-food-safety-regulations/hospitality-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-food-safety-regulations)![Emergency Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Public Safety Communications](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_31T200905_3121.webp) [**Emergency Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Public Safety Communications**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/hospitality-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-food-safety-regulations/emergency-management-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-public-safety-communications)![Law And Legal Expert Allowed to Opine on the Standard of Care for a Certified Financial Planner](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_31T175244_408.webp) [**Law And Legal Expert Allowed to Opine on the Standard of Care for a Certified Financial Planner**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/hospitality-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-food-safety-regulations/law-and-legal-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-standard-of-care-for-a-certified-financial-planner)![Aviation Maintenance Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Agency Relationship ](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_30T195621_2651.webp) [**Aviation Maintenance Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Agency Relationship **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/hospitality-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-food-safety-regulations/aviation-maintenance-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-agency-relationship-)