The defendant brokerage firm brought a motion to strike a supplementary affidavit filed by one of the plaintiffs in response to a pending summary judgment motion.
The defendant argued the affidavit contained impermissible expert opinion evidence, hearsay, and irrelevant material, and was not compliant with Rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court held that the affidavit was not expert evidence but rather the plaintiff’s explanation of how he calculated alleged investment losses based on publicly available information and personal assumptions.
The court found the evidence could potentially affect the outcome of the proceeding and that questions regarding admissibility and weight were better left to the judge hearing the summary judgment motion.
The motion to strike was dismissed.