Filed
`11 November 1 P1:56
`Gary Fitzsimmons
`District Clerk
`Dallas District
`
`

`

`ll. FACTS
`
`2.
`
`Pursuant to an applicable Scheduling Order, Plaintiffs designated a total of
`
`eight (8) expert witnesses on May 6, 2011.
`
`(See Exhibit 1, without attachments.) That
`
`| Designation listed both Mr. Richard Jamieson and Mr. Thomas Newman as expert
`- witnesses.
`It further described their expected testimony using identical language as |
`
`follows:
`
`“Mr. [Jamieson/Newman]is expected to testify regarding liability, damages
`
`and causation within his expertise including, but not limited to, the following:
`e Flammability testing and regulatory requirements regarding
`flammability certification as applied to Aircraft 9168;
`
`e Failure of or inadequacy of the flammability certification asit
`relates to Aircraft 9168;
`
`_@
`
`The costs to remediate or reasonably resolve the deficiencyin
`the flammability certificate; and
`
`@
`
`The consequencesofa deficient or incorrect certificate.”
`
`3.
`The Designation then referred Defendantto the reportsfiled by Mr. Jamieson
`‘and Mr. Newmanfor details of their opinions in the areas described. A review of the
`
`Jamieson report revealed some detail in that regard, (See Exhibit 2, submitted in camera
`“due to the confidential materials discussed therein) but Mr. Newman's report essentially
`
`said only that he agreed with Mr. Jamieson and presented no independentfindings,
`conclusions or opinions. (See Exhibit 3) His lack ofdetailed findings or conclusions is not
`surprising given the fact that he wasretained a mere three (3) days before his “report” was
`
`_ prepared, however, Plaintiffs tardiness in retaining Mr. Newman doesnotallow them to
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`ignore the deadline for submitting his findings and conclusions in a complete and timely
`
`manner.
`
`4.
`
`On October 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “rebuttal” report signed by both Mr.
`
`‘Newmanand Mr. Jamieson.
`
`(See Exhibit 4, submitted in camera due to the confidential
`
`materials discussed therein.) This so called rebuttal report provided only a cursory
`
`responseto the report filed by John Ereaux, Defendant's flammability expert, and in reality
`
`constitutes new and greatly expanded opinions from those experts. Thereis no distinction
`
`in the October 10, 2011 report betweenthefindings, conclusions and opinions of Jamieson
`
`-_ versus thoseof Newman, but onething is clear. The new and greatly expanded opinions
`
`-in the October 10, 2011 “rebuttal” report werefirst submitted long after the deadline to
`
`designate experts andfile reports had passed.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant has attempted to secure an agreement from Plaintiff that they
`
`- would only call one of these witnesses as an expert so as to avoid the need to depose
`
`both. Plaintiff has refused to do so.
`
`‘lll. ARGUMENT
`
`6.
`
`it is uncontested that Plaintiff's deadline to designate experts and provide
`
`‘their reports was May 6, 2011. Rule 194 sets forth the requirements for expert reports from
`
`retained experts such as Mr. Newman. Rule 194.2(f)(3) requires that a party must disclose
`
`general substanceof the expert’s mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary
`
`‘of the basis for them.
`
`In this case, Plaintiff failed to do that for Mr. Newman. His report is
`
`nothing more than a “Me too” endorsementof the report filed by Mr. Jamieson anda list
`
`ofexcuses about why he could not do better.
`
`It is not adequate under Rule 194 or this
`
`Court’s Scheduling Order and should bestricken.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Acursory review of the “rebuttal” report filed jointly by Jamieson and Newman
`7.
`: showsthat those excuses were not true (except perhapsfor the fact that he was only hired
`| three days before the reports were due.) The new and expanded mental impressionsin
`
`the report of October 10, 20141 show ontheir face that they are based on documents that
`
`have been in Plaintiff's possession long before the expert reports were due. Plaintiff
`
`. should not be permitted to lay behind the fog, fail to produce complete reports from their
`: experts and thenfile a “rebuttal” report that is 46 times as long as theoriginal’ containing
`
`new findings and conclusions in areas not even touched upon by Defendant’s expert
`_ reports. The October 10, 2011 report is really a late filed expert report thinly disguised as
`| a rebuttal report.
`Itshould not be permitted. All portions of the October 10, 2011 report
`
`that do not rebut opinions of Defendant's experts should be stricken(i.e. all of the report
`
`- except paragraphs| andIl (c)).
`
`8.
`
`Similarly, it is unfair to permit Plaintiff to designate multiple experts on the
`
`sametopics, require Defendant to depose them both, and then allow Plaintiff to eithercall
`
`- both to trial or pick the one that does the best job in deposition.
`
`It also allows Plaintiff to
`
`“preview” the cross examination of the expert by putting one expert up for deposition and
`' then preparing the second expert on the sametopic based on cross-examination of the
`first.
`It is gamesmanship, pure and simple, and should not be permitted. Defendant
`‘requests that Plaintiff's designation of Thomas Newmanbestricken dueto the delinquent
`disclosure and report with regard to his testimony and the redundant designation of
`
`- Jamieson on the same topics. Alternatively, Defendant requests that Plaintiff be required
`
`1
`the exhibits.
`
`Newman’soriginal report was only one page long. The rebuttal report is 46 pages long including
`Indeed, it is more than twice as long as Jamieson’soriginal report too.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`

`

`| to immediately designate either Jamieson or Newmanasits “flammability expert” and that
`
`Plaintiff be limited to that single expert on the flammability topics at trial.
`
`WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, prays that this matter be
`| ‘submitted for consideration and that, on final consideration of this Motion, the Court enter
`an order striking the report of Jamison/Newman dated October 10, 2011 (except for
`Paragraphs i and Il(c)), and striking Thomas Newman as an expert witness for Plaintiff. |
`
`As an alternative to striking Newman as an expert for Plaintiff, Defendant requests that
`Plaintiff be required to immediately select either Jamieson or Newmanasits expert on
`flammability issues in this case and thatit only bepermitted to call the selected expert at
`
`_ trial on those issues.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`GENDRY & SPRAGUE, P.C.
`645 Lockhill Selma
`San Antonio, Texas 78216-5057
`
`Telephone:
`(210) 349
`Telecopier: (210) 34:
`
`é
` By:
` RON A. SPRAGUE
`
`State Bar No. 189627160
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,
`BOMBARDIER INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`The undersigned counsel has conferred with cou
`‘substance of this Motion. They were not able to agree_and,
`
`for Plaintiff about the
`accordingly, the matteris
`
`submitted to the Court for resolution.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`[hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing pleading was
`emailed to:
`
`Mr. Trey Crawford
`Mr. Brian N. Hail
`Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail & Shank LLP
`‘1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`~ VIA EMAIL
`
`Ms. Pam Hicks
`Beime, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.P.
`1300 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2500
`- Houston, Texas 77056
`VIA EMAIL
`
`- Mr. Sawnie McEntire
`Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.P.
`1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4400
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`VIA EMAIL
`
`8
`‘onthis__|
`
`“day of November, 2011.
`
`‘GARASISKY CAPITAL\Motto Strike or Limit Flam Experts
`
` RON A. SPRAGUE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`—
`
`EXHIBIT1
`
`
`
`

`

`Cause No. DC-08-02249
`
`SKY CAPITAL GROUP, LTD.
`d/b/a. G5000, LTD.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`BOMBARDIER,INC;
`‘ BOMBARDIER,INC.d/b/a
`BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE.
`- CORPORATION; BOMBARDIER ~
`- AEROSPACE CORPORATION;
`and LEARJETINC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`COP6OnCGRGODCOR60D6DGonOm60D60sbonuteofco
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT
`
`DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`44™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`SKY CAPITALGROUP, LTD.d/b/a G5000 LTD'S
`DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS AND FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE
`TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE
`_ All Parties and Counsel ofRecord
`
`|
`‘TO:
`
`Sky Capital Group, Ltd. d/b/a G5000 Ltd. (“Sky Capital’) hereby makes and serves this
`Designation of Experts and First Supplemental Response to Requests for Disclosure in
`
`accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order, as amended by agreement ofthe parties, and Rule
`
`194.2(f) ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`Rule 194,2(f)
`
`For anytestifying expert:
`
`(1)
`
`The expert’s ame, address, and telephone number;
`
`(2)
`
`. Thesubject matter on which the expert will testify;
`
`
`
`

`

`C.
`
`(3)
`
`The general substance of the expert's mental impressions and opinions and a
`brief summary of the basis fer them, or if the expert is not retained by,
`employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party,
`documents reflecting such information;
`
`
`
`(4)
`
`If the expert is retained by, employed by or otherwise subject to your
`control:
`
`(A)
`
`tangible things, reports, models, or data
`produce all documents,
`compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by
`or for the expert in anticipation of the expert’s testimony; and
`
`(B)
`
`the experé’s current resume and bibliography.
`
`RESPONSE: Sky Capital hereby designates the following individuals as experts in accordance
`. with Rule 194.2(f} (1) through(4):
`
`L
`
`RETAINED EXPERTS
`
`The following individuals are retained experts who may provide expert opinion testimony
`
`at trial.
`
`‘1.
`
`.
`
` Emie Killingsworth —
`Killingsworth Aircraft Valuation Service, LLV
`18431 S. RoaringRiver Ct.
`Humble, Texas 77346
`281-812-4101
`
`Mr. Killingsworth is an expert aircraft appraiser. He is expected to testify about his education,
`background and work experience to the extent relevarit to his opinions in this case.
`
`“Mr. Killingsworth is expected to testify regarding damages and causation issues in this case
`within his areas of expertise including, but not limited to, the following:
`
`«
`
`‘Trends in the marketplace for the purchase and sale of business jets in the Global
`" fleet (and comparable aircraft) and specific changes and fluctuations in demand for
`‘such jets in 2006 through the present;
`
`e Deterioration of the marketplace for sales and the fair market value (FMV) of
`business jets comparable to Aircraft 9168 during relevant time periods;
`
`2
`
`€
`

`

`mM
`
`® The FMV ofAircraft 9168 upon delivery to Sky Capital in April 2006;
`
`© The FMV ofAircraft 9168 as ofMay 2011;
`
`e The FMV of Aircraft 9168 in late 2007;
`
`¢ Diminution in the FMV of Aircraft 9168 caused by unresolved Open Delivery Items
`(ODIs) and other unresolved defects in workmanship together \with the historical
`stigma associated with Aircraft 9168; and
`
`.® Lost sales opportunities relating to Aircraft 9168 and quantification of potential
`damages.
`
`Mr. Killingsworth also will testify in response to the opinions and work product of the
`.. Defendants’ designated experts as may be described in their reports and any deposition ortrial
`_ testimony they may provide.
`
`Mr. Killingsworth’s opinions are more fuliy set forth in his expert report, which is attached
`‘hereto as Exhibit “A-1”, and which is incorporated herein for all purposes.
`
`_ .Adist of the materialsreviewed or considered by this expert aré either attached to or described in
`his expert report. His credentials, the bases for his opinions and materials relied upon are
`_ disclosed in or attached to his report. To the extent not previously produced, various materials
`.generated by or-reviewed by Mr. Killingsworth in connection with his opinions are
`‘contemporancouslyproduced with this designation and are attachedto his report and/or produced
`“in:the disk which accompaniesthis designation.
`
`further incorporates by reference Mr. Killingworth’s anticipated deposition
`' Sky Capital
`testimony which will also detail his opinions, impressions and the bases for same, as well as the.
`facts and materials he relied upon to support such opinions and impressions.
`
`2.
`
`‘Scott Bayley
`_ Accumyn Consulting
`
`é1415 Congress Street, Suite200
`~ Houston, Texas 77002
`.713-800-2551
`| Mr.‘Bayley iis a Certified Public Accountant, Certified Valuation Analyst, Certified Fraud
`-Examiner and an Accredited Business Valuation consultant. Mr. Bayley is expected to testify to
`his education, background, work experience and past research activities:to the extent relevantto
`his opinions in this case.
`
`a
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Mr. Bayley is expected to testify regarding damages and causation issues in this case withinhis
`areas of expertise including, but not limited to:
`
`« Net present value (NPV) of estimated future repair costs relating to defects and
`deficiencies in Aircraft 9168 and further arising from deficient or defective
`compietion;
`
`¢ Past expenses incurred by Sky Capital due to defects in Aircraft 9168; and —
`
`e Adverse financial impacts and damages experienced by Sky Capital due to the Open
`Delivery Items and other defects and deficiencies in workmanship in Aircraft 9168.
`
`Mr, Bayley also will testify in response to the opinions and work product of the Defendants’
`designated experts as may be describediin their reports and any deposition ortrial testimony they
`may provide.
`Mr. Bayley’s opinions are more fully set forth in his expert report, which is attached hereto as
`_.. Exhibit “B-1", and which is incorporated herein for all purposes. Mr. Bayley’s credentials, the
`_ bases for his opinions and materials relied upon are disclosed in or attached to his expert report.
`
`A list of the materials reviewed or considered by Mr. Bayley are either attached to or described
`in his expert report. Mr. Bayley is further expectedto testify consistent with the published peer
`reviewed literature concerning areas within his expertise. To the extent not previously produced,
`various materials generated by or reviewed by Mr. Bayley in connection with his opinionsare
`contemporaneously produced with this designation and are attached to his report and/or produced
`_ inthe disk which accompanies this designation.
`
`Sky Capital further incorporates by reference his anticipated deposition testimony, which will
`also detail his opinions, impressions and the bases for same, as well as the facts and materials he
`relied upon to support such opinions and impressions.
`
`. 3.
`
`Danny Farnham
`3124 Tollgate Road
`St Louis, Missowi 63129
`314-517-3032-
`Mr. Fambam jis an expert in the area of Aircraft completion and the costs ofrepair of aircraft,
`Mr. Farnham is expected to testify to his education, background and work experienceto the
`exterit relevant to his opinions in this case.
`Mr. Famham iis expected to testify regarding liability, damages and causation issues in this case
`within his areas ofexpertise including, but not limited to:
`e Defects in workmanship associated with the completion ofAircraft 9168;
`
`4
`
`

`

`* Current status of open ODIs, defects, deficiencies and other snags associated with
`Aircraft 9168;
`
`¢ Current condition of Aircraft 9168 relating to open ODIs, defects, deficiencies and
`other snags associated with Aircraft 9168;
`
`¢ Future costs to repair or reasonably resolve the ODIs, defects, deficiencies and snags
`associated with Aircraft 9168;
`
`¢ Currentstatus of the ODIs as first identified in April 2006 at the time ofthe Delivery
`Document and which ofthese ODIs remain unresolved today; and
`
`° Evaluation ofwindow fogging and the causes ofthis discrepancy in Aircraft 9168.
`Mr. Farnham also will testify in response to the opinions and work product of the Defendants’
`. designated experts as may be described in their reports and any deposition ortrial testimony they
`may provide.
`
`Mr. Farnham’s opinions are more fully set forth in his expert report, which is attached hereto as
`Exhibit “C-1”, and which is incorporated herein for all purposes. Mr. Fammham’s credentials, the
`-bases for his opinions and materials relied upon are disclosed in or attached to his expert report.
`
`A list of the materials reviewed or considered by Mr. Farnham are either attached to or described
`-in his expert report. Mr. Farnham also inspected the subject Global 5000 S/N 9168 and flew in
`the.Aircraft. To the extent not previously produced, various materials generated by or reviewed
`- by ‘Mr. Farnham in connection with his opinions are contemporaneously produced with this
`designation and aré attached to his report and/or produced in the disk which accompanies this
`designation.
`
`Sky Capital further incorporates by reference his anticipated deposition testimony, which will
`also detail his opinions, impressions and the bases for same, as well as the facts and materials he
`relied upon to support such opinions and impressions.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`fo
`
`| 4:
`
`Mark Lange
`Aviation Modification Leaders
`102 Crooked Cove
`Argyle, Texas 76226
`940-294-6040
`
`Mr. Lange is an electrical engineer who specializes in avionics atid aviation electronics
`including, but not limitedto, cabin management systems and cabin entertainment systems. Mr,
`Lange is expected to testify to his education, background |and work experience to the extent
`relevant to his opinions in this case.
`
`Mr. Lange is expected to testify regarding liability, damages and causation issues in this case
`_ within his area of expettise including, but not limited to:
`
`¢
`
`Identification and evaluation ofthe defects in the Cabin Management System (“CMS”)
`and Cabin Entertainment System (“CES”) in Aircraft 9168;
`‘« Evaluation and identification ofpast and current problems or defects relating to window
`fogging and water systems in Aircraft 9168;
`
`_
`
`«© Current status of defects relating to window fogging, water supply and other functions
`relating to the CMS, CES and Environmental Control System (“ECS”) in Aircraft 9168;
`le Future costs to repair or réasonably resolve the problems and defects in the CMS and
`CESsystems in Aircraft 9168;
`
`Future costs torepair or reasonablyresolve window fogging and water supply issues; and
`e
`¢ Defendants’ state of knowledge regarding window fogging, water supply issues, and
`other finctional problems and defects in the CMS and CES systems.
`
`Mr. Langealso will testify in response to the opinions and work product of the Defendants’
`designated experts as described in their reports and any deposition ortrial testimony they may
`-.. provide.
`
`: ‘Mr. Lange’s opinions are more fully set forth in his expert report, which is attached hereto as
`Exhibit “D-1”, and which is incorporated herein for all purposes. Mr. Lange’s credentials, the
`bases for his opinions and materials relied upon are disclosed in or attached to his expert report.
`
`A list ofthe materials reviewed or considered by Mr. Langeare either attached to or described in
`his expert report. To the extent not previously produced, various materials generated by or
`reviewed by Mr. Langein contiection with his opinions are contemporaneously produced with
`
`
`
`

`

`ate?
`er
`
`oe
`Ko
`
`this designation and are attached to his report and/or produced in the disk which accompanies
`' this designation.
`
`Sky Capital further incorporates by reference his anticipated deposition testimony, which will
`also detail his opinions, impressions and the bases for same, as well as the facts and materials he
`relied upon to support such opinions and impressions.
`-
`
`5.
`
`Bryan Landry
`Renaissance International Holdings
`109 Rue Des Ruisseaux
`Tie Perrot, Quebec J7V 8X2
`514-706-3570
`
`Mr. Landry is a specialist in aircraft completion and.is a former employee of Bombardier. Mr.
`‘ Landry is expected to testify to his education, background, and work experience to the extent
`relevant to his opinions in this case.
`
`Mr. Landry is expected to testify regarding liability, damages and causation issues in this case
`within his expertise inchiding, but not limited to, the following:
`
`Identification of defects in workmanship in Aircraft 9168 during the pre-delivery,
`delivery and post-delivery time periods;
`
`Current status of the ODIs as identified in April 2006 at the time the Delivery Document
`was executed arid which of these ODIs remain open or unresolved today;
`
`Current status of other deficiencies and defects in the interior of Aircraft 9168 other than
`‘ the ODIs;
`
`The repeated frequency-of defects and deficiencies in Aircraft 9168;
`
`The failure of the warranty for its essential purpose and the on-going failure of the
`_watranty to resolve continuing problems in Aircraft 9168;
`
`The future costs to repair or reasonably resolve the ODIs and other defects in the interior
`> of Aircraft 9168; and
`
`
`
`The problems known to Bombardier regarding water problems, window fogging, CMS,
`ECS and CESand related issues in other aircraft within the Global fleet (Global Express,
`_ Global 5000, XRS) before Aircraft 9168 was sold to Sky Capital and before Aircraft
`
`9168 was delivered to Sky Capital.
`
`
`
`

`

`Mr. Landry also will testify in response to the opinions and work product of the Defendants’
`designated experts within his areas of expertise, as described in their reports and any deposition
`or trial testimony they may provide.
`
`_
`
`Mr. Landry’s opinions are more fully set forth in his expert report, which is attached hereto as
`Exhibit “E-1”, and which is incorporated herein for all purposes. Mr. Landry’s credentials, the
`_ bases for his opinions and materials relied upon are disclosed in or attached to his expert report.
`
`A list of materials reviewed or considered by Mr. Landry are either attached to or described in
`his expert report. To the extent not previcusly produced, various materials generated by or
`_ teviewed by Mr. Landry in connection with his opinions are contemporaneously produced with
`‘this designation and are attached to his report and/or produced in the disk which accompanies
`this designation.
`.
`
`Sky Capital further incorporates by reference his anticipated deposition testimony, which will
`also detail his opinions, impressions and the bases for same, as well as the facts and materials he
`relied upon to support such opinions asid impressions.
`
`6.:
`
`Richard Jamieson
`_ RJ Custom Jets Inc.
`2412 Deerfield Drive
`PO Box 369
`. Maryville, Ilionois 62062
`618-646-8014
`
`
`
`' Mr. Jamieson is a specialist in aircraft completion and is a former employee at Bombardier. Mr.
`Jamieson is expected to testify to his education, background, and work experience to the extent
`relevant to his opinions in this case.
`
`Mr. Jamieson is expected to testify regarding liability, damages and causation issues in this case
`‘within his expertise including, but notlimited to, the following:
`
`-© Flammability testing and regulatory requirements regarding flammability certification
`'
`generally and as applied to Aircraft 9168;
`© Failure ofor inadequacyofthe flammability certification as it relates to Aircraft 9168;
`
`e The costs to remediate or reasonably resolve the deficiency in the flammability
`’
`certificate; and
`
`© The consequencesof a deficient or incorrect certificate.
`
`
`
`eetetneneepeAIE AE
`
`

`

`Mr. Jamieson also will testify in response to the opinions and work product of the Defendants’
`designated experts within his areas of expertise, as described in their reports and any deposition
`ortrial testimony they may provide.
`
`_ Mz. Jamieson’s opinions are more fully set forth in his expert report, which is attached hereto
`Exhibit “F-1”, and which is incorporated herein for all purposes. Mr. Jamieson’s credentials, the
`bases for his opinions and materials relied upon are disclosed in or attachedto his expert report.
`
`A list of materials reviewed or considered by Mr. Jamieson are either attached to or described in
`his expert report. To the extent not previously produced, various materials generated by or
`reviewed by Mr, Jamieson in connection with his opinions are contemiporancously produced with
`this designation and are attached to his report and/or produced in the disk which accompanies
`- this designation.
`Sky Capital further incomporates by reference his anticipated deposition testimony, which will
`
`also detail his opinions, impressions and the bases for same, as well as the facts and materials he .
`relied upon to support such opinions and impressions.
`
`7. Thomas Newman
`Thomas Newman Engineering
`M.J. Aircraft Inc.
`262 Aitport Rd.
`Anderson, Indiana 46017
`800-736-2134
`
`“Mr.: Newman is a specialist in flammability testing. He is expected to testify to his education,
`background, and work experience to the extent relevant to his opinions in this case.
`
`“Mr. Newman is expectedto testify regarding liability and causation issues in this case withinhis
`expertise including, but not limited to, the following:
`
`e Flammability testing and regulatory requirements regarding flammability certification
`generally and as applied to Aircraft 9168;
`
`« . Failure of or inadequacy ofthe flammability certification as it relates to Aircraft 9168;
`
`e The costs to remediate or
`certificate; and
`
`reasonably resolve the deficiency in the flammability
`
`¢ The consequences of a deficient or incorrect certificate
`
`
`
`

`

`Mr. Newman’s opinions are more fully set forth in his expert report, which is attached hereto as
`Exhibit “G-7”, and which is incorporated herein for all purposes. Mr. Newman’scredentials, the
`bases for his opinions and materials felied upon are disclosed in or attached to his expert report.
`
`_
`
`_
`
`A list of materials reviewed or considered by Mr. Newman are either attached to or described in
`his expert report. Mr. Newman is further expected to testify consistent with the published peer
`reviewed literature concerning areas within his expertise.
`‘To the extent not previously produced,
`various materials generated by or reviewed by Mr. Newman in connection with his opinions are
`contemporancously produced with this designation and are attached to his report and/or produced
`in the disk which accompanies this designation.
`In addition to the materials identified in or
`attached to his report, Mr. Newman has considered those documents identified on Exhibit “G-2”.
`
`Sky Capital further incorporates by reference his anticipated deposition testimony, which will
`also detail his opinions, impressions and the bases for same, as well as the facts and materials he
`relied upon to support such opinions and impressions.
`
`8.
`
`Lewis Sifford
`‘ Stfford, Anderson & Co., P.C.
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 600
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`214-742-1200
`
`Mr.Sifford is an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Texas. He is knowledgeable of
`_ and an expert in the area of the necessity and reasonableness of attorncy’s fees. Ms. Sifford is
`- expected to testify concerning the reasonableness and necessity of the attomey’s fees incurred by
`Sky Capital in this maiter. |
`
`Mr. Sifford’s opinions are more fully set forth in his expert report, which is attached. hereto
`. Exhibit “H-1”, and which is incorporated herein for all purposes. Mr. Sifford’s credentials, the
`basesfor his opinions and materials relied upon are disclosed in or attached to his expert report.
`
`A list of materials reviewed or considered by Mr. Sifford are eithér attached to or described in
`his expert report. Mf. Sifford is further expected to testify consistent with the published peer
`reviewed literature concerning areas within his expertise. To the extent not previously produced,
`various materials getierated by or reviewed by Mr. Sifford in connection with his opinions are
`contemporancdusly produced with this designation and are attached to his report and/or produced
`in the disk which accompanies this designation,
`
`-
`
`- Sky Capital further incorporates by reference his anticipated deposition testimony, which will
`also detail his opinions, impressions and the bases for same, as well as the facts and materials he
`relied upon to support such opinions and impressions.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`WITNESSES DESIGNATED AS EXPERTS BY OTHER PARTIES
`
`Sky Capital reserves the right to cail as witnesses, either under the adverse witness rule,
`
`.
`
`experts,
`
`Ti.
`
`NON-RETAINED INCIDENT-RELATED WITNESSES
`
`Sky Capital reserves the right to call as expert witnesses and/or elicit expert opinion
`
`testimony from individuals who were involved in the transactions or occurrences in question.
`
`‘These individuals are fact witnesses, but may also offer opinion testimony due to their
`
`specialized background, education, training or job-related experience. Sky Capital reserves the -
`
`right to call such witnesses in its case in chief, under the adverse witness rule, under the hostile
`
`hostile witness rule, or otherwise, any individuals designated as expert witnesses by Defendants.
`in doing so, Sky Capital does not vouch forthe credentials or credibility ofany suchwitnesses,
`nor by this designation do they intend to adopt any opinions generated by the Defendants’
`
`
`
`_ witnessrule or otherwise, as follows:
`
`1.
`
`John Astorino
`1640 Schevchenko, #209
`La Salle; Quebec
`‘Cariada #8N3B1
`
`58/1 Haupstrasse
`D-70771 Leinfelden — Echterdeingere
`Germany
`510-560-9414 -
`
`Mr. Astorino was formerly affiliated with Global Jet. Among other things, Mr.
`Astorino has technical expertise relating to defects and deficiencies in S/N 9168
`
`il
`
`

`

`and the attempts torepair these defects, as well as delays relating to delivery. His
`opinions are identified, in part, in his correspondence to Bombardier which has
`_been produced in this matter by both Defendants and Sky Capital.
`
`Pierre~Gabriel Cété
`Current Address Unknown
`
`Mr. Cété is a former executive officer of Bombardier. His current location is
`unknown. Among other things, he has technical knowledge concerning the
`defects and deficiencies in S/N 9168 and delays relating to delivery. This
`‘knowledge is reflected,
`in part,
`in various correspondence which has been
`produced in this case by both Defendants and Sky Capital.
`
`-
`
`|
`
`AntoineDavid
`Global Jet Austria
`- PF 81/PO Box 81-A1010 Wiem
`". Schottenting 12, A-1010'
`Austria”
`
`‘Global Jet Luxemburg
`-BP 3087/L-1030 Luxemburg
`352 49 80 89
`
`Mr. David is affiliated with Global Jet Austria. Among other things, he has
`technical knowledge of the defects and deficiencies in S/N 9168. He alse has
`expertise concerning the costs associated with the repairs of S/N 9168 and the
`adverse impacts that the problems regarding 8/N 9168 have had on the charter
`business of S/N 9168. Mr. David also has expertise concerning the costs
`associated with ferry time and costs related to aircraft inspection. This various
`expertise is reflected in documents authored by Mr. David and produced in this
`case
`
`- Duncan B. Koerbel
`"1425 S. Filmore Street
`'. Denver, Colorado 80210
`720-379-6882
`
`.
`
`Mr. Koerbel is a former executive officer of Bombardier. Amongother things,
`he has technical expertise regarding the defects and deficiencies in S/N 9168 and
`the catises of the delays in the delivery related to S/N 9168. He also has
`. knowledge of the lack of Bombardier’s experience or expertise related to
`completions, His various opinionsare reflected, in part, in his letters and other
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`communications to Sky Capital or Global Jet and which have been produced in
`this case by both Defendants and Sky Capital. By way of example, Mr. Koerbel
`_ authored several letters in February 2006 regarding matters within his expertise.
`
`’ Guy Landry
`President & CEO BFAC Services
`8550 Cote de Liesse, Ste. 160
`- St. Laurent, Quebec H4T 1H2
`Canada
`
`Amongother things, Mr. Landry has technical expertise relating to the defects mn
`S/N 9168 and the attempts to repair these defects. His various opinions are
`reflected, in part, in the communications that he authored and forwarded to
`Defendants and that have been produced iin this case by both Defendants and Sky
`Capital.
`
`_ Steven Lewis
`Interior Solutions
`1674Blueberry Hill
`St. Lazare, Quebec, Canada
`J7T 237
`
`Mr. Lewis was formerly affiliated with Global Jet in connection with the
`completion of the aircraft and also following delivery. Among other things, he
`- has technical expertise regarding defects in S/N 9168 both prior to delivery and
`_ post delivery as well as delays relating to the aircraft. His various opinions are
`reflected, in part, in the communications he authored and sent to Defendants
`. Which have produced in this matter by both Defendants and Sky Capital.
`
`' Richard Van Den Hoef
`P.O. Box 385
`_ Alexandria Ont
`Canada KOC 1A0
`
`Mr. Van Den Hoefis a pilot affiliated with Global JetLuxemburg. Among other
`things, he has knowledge concerning snags and discrepancies in S/N 9168. His
`Opinions are reflected, in part, in the flight logs which he Prepared which have
`' been producediin this case.
`
`B. Grunfeld -
`‘Global Jet Luxemburg
`BP 3087/L-1030 Luxemburg
`352 49 80 89
`
`‘
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`~N
`
`f
`
`’ Mr. Grunfeld is a pilot and may be contacted through Global Jet Luxemburg.
`_ Amongotherthings he has knowledge concerning snags and discreparicies in S/N
`9168. His opinions are reflected, in part, in the flight logs which he prepared
`which have produced in this case.
`
`9.
`
`'
`
`°C. Pinnerup_
`- Global JetLuxemburg
`BP 3087/L-1030 Luxemburg
`352 49 80 89
`
`Mr. Pinnerup is a pilot and may be contacted through Global Jet. He has
`_ knowledge concerning snags and deficiencies in S/N 9168. His opinions are
`reflected, in part, in the flight logs whi