[T]he substance of Marshall’s purported expert report makes clear that he has not reviewed the facts of the case at bar in the slightest and has no insight into whether or not Mr. Tenenbaum engaged in copyright infringement other than a general belief that music should be shared. The fact that Mr. Nesson’s son-in-law may have an opinion does not mean that he gets to take the stand and advocate on behalf of Defendant. The witness appears to be offered for the improper purpose of seeking to have the jury ignore existing copyright law. As the Court has already held that philosophical pronouncements, such as Marshall’s opinion of music as ‘a shared thing,’ are not the proper subject of expert testimony, Defendant’s Motion should be denied.(links added by me). The labels also say that, in the event Judge Gertner allows Marshall to testify, they plan to file a separate motion to strike him based on Daubert -- a case on which Nesson served as counsel.
Given past events, I probably shouldn't say I would be shocked by anything in this case, but ... I would be shocked if Judge Gertner allows Marshall to serve as an expert.
Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion to Add Wayne Marshall as Expert