No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net

of his training or expertise”).
Plaintiffs tried to get around Ryles’ and Hunter’s admitted lack of expertise by
arguing that they were acting as experts, not on technical issues, but rather on the
interpretation of State Farm’s internal documents. Ryles and Hunter described themselves
as the “documents guy[s],” R. 6388, whose job it was to “review documents by State Farm”
that plaintiffs’ counsel had collected in binders labeled the “State Farm Story,” and to
“identify what State Farm had said about various issues.” R. 4853, C. 26227-28, 27391-
92. 44/ The problem with this argument, however, is that there is no such thing as an “expert”
in determining what the defendant “ha[s] said about various issues,” because that task
requires no special skill or knowledge.
“[E]xpert testimony is not admissible on matters of common knowledge unless the
subject is difficult to understand or explain.” People v. Gilliam, 172 Ill.2d 484, 513 (1996);
accord Hernandez v. Power Constr. Co., 73 Ill.2d 90, 99 (1978); People v. Clayton, 302
Ill.App.3d 220, 226 (2d Dist. 1998). “[T]o testify as an expert, it must be shown that such
person possesses ‘special skills beyond the ken of the average juror and that he employed
those skills in forming an opinion.’” Urbas v. Saintco, Inc., 264 Ill.App.3d 111, 137 (5th
Dist. 1994). Expert testimony that “consists of nothing more than” summarizing documents
and “drawing inferences . . . that [the expert is] no more qualified than the jury to draw” is
inadmissible. United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 604 (7th Cir. 1991), amended, 957
44/
Plaintiffs’ counsel presented the witnesses with State Farm documents and asked
such questions as “Tell the jury about this letter. What does it say?,” R. 4688, and “Tell the
jury the gist of that document,” R. 4795. The “experts” compliantly responded with such
answers as “I assume because of [] what I’ve seen in the record that . . .,” R. 6509, and the
“inferences that I drew from reading the document [are]. . .,” R. 4817.
-99-