I’m not sure but what Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler said or meant to say was “flesh out”, rather than “flush out”, the expert (whom I’ll call Moe), who will testify to what bases he used to deduce the state of mind of our pal the willing buyer.

The willing buyer, says Moe, would pay zero for the development option held by Stone Lock District Holdings Investors, LLC (hereinafter sometimes denoted as SLDH). And, of course, Stone Lock District Holdings Investors, LLC, The Cordish Family I, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 32930-21, filed 8/29/24, definitely want to “flush out” Moe’s report, and don’t want to wait for the trial, but have Judge Speedy Weiler save their trusty attorneys the work.

For once, it’s not Dixieland Boondockery, but a busted development deal of 200 acres athwart the Port of Sacramento (CA, where else?) Deep Water channel. SLDH had an option agreement with a local government development authority, the Port of West Sacramento, and the City of West Sacramento, to sell the land. The State dissolved the local development authority, the City took over, and the Port canceled the deal, demanding SLDH assign the option to the Port.

Clear? Thought not.

So the parties worked a deal whereby SLDH donated the option to the Port. And took a $57 million charitable donation deduction.

Translated from the political, the Port, the City, and SLDH, weighing the risks of litigating the grab by the Bear Republic of this option (exploring the details of the negotiation of which might require its own flushing out), decided to have the Port and City buy out SLDH with our tax money.

And Moe? He’s IRS’ guy. But he has a couple issues (hi, Judge Holmes).

Moe’s summary of his report says the option at point of donation gave no one any legal rights, and therefore was worth zero. That gets Moe’s summary tossed.

“We find that the majority of the Summary Conclusions found in Moe’s report contain legal statements and conclusions relating to SLDH’s contractual rights are in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Therefore, we will exclude those portions from evidence.” Order, at pp. 4-5.

But Moe’s speculations on the willing buyer’s state of mind stay in.

“Next, in its Motion in Limine, petitioner seeks to exclude Moe’s opinions with respect to intentions (or ‘state of mind’) of SLDH, the City and other third parties. Specifically citing to portions of testimony found in Parts C.C. and C.D. [of the report], petitioner contends that Moe is speculating when he reaches his conclusions. While respondent may be asking Moe to speculate, at this point prior to trial it is premature for us to determine what these conclusions are based upon. Furthermore, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 offers an expert witness ‘wide latitude to offer opinions,’ including opinions not based on first-hand knowledge or personal observation. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592. We are not inclined to exclude Moe’s opinions which may (or may not) go to the ‘state of mind’ of SLDH, the City, and other third party. Rather, we prefer to rely on petitioner’s counsel to ‘flush out’ the issue at trial.” Order, at p. 5.

How can we discuss expert’s opinions without Daubert?

So Moe is safe, for now. And if Moe plays it straight on the stand, maybe so it might could be that, unlike at the poker table, his straight may beat the flush.