• (p4-5) - MR. FOSTER:  I will start with a couple of the Court's ruling in regard to Ms. Moore where the Daubert motion is granted, which we think should also be applied to Mr. Sabatini because he offers the same opinions and lacks similarly foundation for them.
  • This is in regard to the Monte Carlo simulations.
• As the Court found in regard to Ms. Moore, there was not sufficient foundation for either her opinion -- this is on page eight of the Court's tentative ruling -- either her opinion that Monte Carlo simulations would not be understood by consumers or her opinion that there would be an NAIC violation resulting from those simulations.

• In regard to consumer understanding, the Court correctly found that there was no foundation because, quote...
  • "The concept of policy performance based on hypothetical returns is not so complex that consumers could not understand it."
  • [Bonk: Where did "the Court" say this? Which Document?]
• This ruling should be extended to Mr. Sabatini as we argued in our opening brief at pages 23 to 24.
  • Mr. Sabatini opined in his report that there is a serious cause for skepticism that a consumer would be able to understand the Monte Carlo simulation, virtually the same opinion given by Ms. Moore.

2014 0327 - DOC 781 - TRANSCRIPT for proceedings - 85p