context: Mr. Vinella's testimony likewise will be excluded to the extent' he concludes that Defendants' conduct breached certain legal or contractual duties, because this testimony reaches beyond merely addressing an ultimate issue, and instead constitutes an inadmissible legal opinion.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 455 F.3d 218, 218
citation_a.parenthetical: finding that an expert could not testify concerning whether the plaintiff "complied with legal duties" under the securities law
citation_a.sentence: See Berckeley Inv. Grp., 455 F.3d at 218 (finding that an expert could not testify concerning whether the plaintiff “complied with legal duties” under the securities law); see also Wolfe, 881 F.Supp.2d at 661-62 (excluding expert testimony concerning whether the defendant acted negligent on the grounds that such testimony amounted to an impermissible legal opinion).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 881 F.Supp.2d 661, 661-62
citation_b.parenthetical: excluding expert testimony concerning whether the defendant acted negligent on the grounds that such testimony amounted to an impermissible legal opinion
citation_b.sentence: See Berckeley Inv. Grp., 455 F.3d at 218 (finding that an expert could not testify concerning whether the plaintiff “complied with legal duties” under the securities law); see also Wolfe, 881 F.Supp.2d at 661-62 (excluding expert testimony concerning whether the defendant acted negligent on the grounds that such testimony amounted to an impermissible legal opinion).