GTECH (IGT) filed its Third Amended Response to Disclosures in which it identified the expert witnesses it intends to use at the time of trial. GTECH intends to present testimony from Laurel Smith Stvan, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Linguistics at The University of Texas at Arlington. GTECH described her anticipated testimony as follows:
“Dr. Stvan will rely upon her knowledge of linguistics and the teaching of composition particularly with reference to the recognition and avoidance of ambiguity in written documents to testify regarding the conclusions made by an ordinary reasonable speaker of contemporary American English when examining the language of Game 5 of the Fun 5’s scratch-off ticket.
The general substance of Dr. Stvan’s opinions are as follows:
1. One key way the word “that” functions in the English language is to point back to the same noun in the previous sentence. So in game 5, the word “that” in the second sentence refers back to the PRIZE described in the first sentence.
2. There is a pragmatic mechanism in game 5 that relates to the sequencing of the 2 sentences. The reader expects the order of the tasks to be presented in the order in which they occur. So the action mentioned in the first sentence is performed before the action mentioned in the second sentence. In other words, once you do this first action, then this other action will follow.
3. It is clear that the 2 sentences should be read together and neither sentence should be interpreted in isolation.
As to the opinions attributed to Dr. Butters in “Plaintiffs’ Expert Designations ”, I disagree with the opinions and statements set forth in paragraphs paragraph 3, a, b and c.
The methodology used by Dr. Stvan to arrive at her opinions is as follows:
d. My opinions are based upon the application of general principles of the science of linguistics, particularly the branches of linguistics called syntax, discourse analysis, pragmatics and semantics. In addition, I have drawn upon my experience as scholar, teacher, and administrator in university linguistics programs dedicated to the teaching and production of clear and coherent interpretation and writing.
Dr. Stvan might possibly develop additional mental impressions and opinions as additional discovery materials become available for her review. Dr. Stvan will be made available for deposition, if Plaintiffs and/or Intervenors wish to explore the additional mental impressions and opinions. Dr. Stvan specifically reserves the right to offer additional opinions based on any new designations or opinions offered by experts designated by Plaintiffs or Intervenors.”
GTECH has also designated William Abington who is a CPA and Certified Fraud Examiner. GTECH describes his anticipated testimony as follows:
“He may testify regarding the damages claimed by Plaintiffs and Intervenors once they explain the methodology they are using to calculate their alleged damages. Furthermore, Mr. Abington may testify regarding the statistical probability of the alleged prizes and damages sought by Plaintiffs and Intervenors.
Mr. Abington might possibly develop additional mental impressions and opinions as additional discovery materials become available for his review. Once a reasonable time has passed after Plaintiffs and Intervenors have actually disclosed their methodology, Mr. Abington will be made available for deposition, if Plaintiffs and/or Intervenors wish to explore the additional mental impressions and opinions. Mr. Abington specifically reserves the right to offer additional opinions based on any new opinions or explanations offered by experts designated by Plaintiffs or Intervenors.”
