Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-md-01916-KAM

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS

INTERNATIONAL, INC. ALIEN
TORTS STATUTE AND
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION
__________________________________________/

This Order relates to:

ATS ACTIONS
__________________________________________/

08-80465-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-144)

10-80652-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-976)
11-80404-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-677)
11-80405-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-254)
17-80475-CIV-MARRA (OH Action) (Does 1-2146)

__________________________________________/

Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendants' Consolidated Daubert Motion

to Preclude Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert Manuel Ortega [DE 2521]

On Sept 11, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs' First Motion to Remand, "WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs to renew their motion after the resolution of any dispositive motions."

Omnibus Order, DE 2094 at 1. The Defendant's Daubert Motion was filed before dispositive

motions were decided, on the deadline for pre trial motions, for trials in which Mr. Ortega isn't

involved.1 DE 2521. However, since the Court is deciding summary judgment motions for two

of our test cases, the Plaintiffs don't object if the Court includes Mr. Ortega in its Daubert ruling.

1
The caption on the Defendants' Motion refers to only one of the above-captioned cases, the
disputed "Does 1-144." Representation of these individuals is currently subject to a pending Cross
Motion to Sever. DE 2373. Should the Court find that undersigned counsel represents Does 11-
144, they would be severed from the other cases added to Complaint 08-80465-CIV-MARRA by
Attorney Collingsworth, and go to trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Otherwise, if Collingsworth and/or Conrad & Scherer, LLP represent Does 1-144, Mr. Ortega
would not be involved.
1
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 2 of 15

In addition, the undersigned Plaintiffs join in the non-Wolf Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine

and Request for Daubert Hearings regarding Chiquita's purported experts Sanchez, Rincon,

Cuadrado, Flemmons, Gadis, Otero, DE 2527, and Motion to Strike Cuadrado as an improperly

paid fact witness, DE 2520, should the Court want to apply these pre-trial rulings to the instant

cases. 2 This is within the Court's discretion, and should be guided by principles of stare decisis,

without limiting the transferee court's ability to manage the case.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

Mr. Ortega analyzed the facts of two bellwether cases discussed herein based on notes

made of previous interviews of the Plaintiffs, his own face-to-face interviews of the Plaintiffs in

Medellín, Colombia, and documents provided in discovery to Chiquita. His analysis of the facts

of these cases is repeated in § B infra.

The Defendant's challenge is limited to Mr. Ortega's opinion that the AUC "probably"

committed these crimes. The Defendant doesn't challenge Mr. Ortega's opinions that making

payments to terrorist organizations is a serious crime, or that Chiquita paid $1.7 million dollars to

the AUC, and a similar amount to the FARC and other illegal armed groups. The Defendant

mischaracterizes Mr. Ortega's opinion that payments of thousands of dollars would have been a

"supporting" source of funding for the AUC, as being an "important" source of funding, which is

a legal conclusion or judgment he did not attempt to make. His opinion is that "Money payments

to the AUC would have furthered their ability, AUC, to commit these murders and control their

area of operations. [sic] As the most prominent banana company in Uraba, the millions of dollars

paid by Chiquita to the AUC and other terrorist groups also set a bad example for other companies

2
Of these, only Sanchez and Rincon were disclosed to me, and produced their reports to me. The
others I only learned about from reading the public filings in other cases in the MDL.
2
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 3 of 15

in the region." DE 2329 at 19.3 Only Chiquita's experts attempted to weigh the importance of this

evidence, or estimate the finances of the AUC. 4 This is despite the fact that Mr. Ortega was one

of the top FBI agents in Colombia for much of his career, and personally investigated and

interviewed many top AUC commanders and drug traffickers.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Defendant's Daubert Motion challenges Mr. Ortega's conclusion that the AUC was

"probably" responsible for these two crimes.5 Of the four Daubert factors, the Defendant

challenges the reliability of the methods used by Mr. Ortega, without making any specific

criticisms. See Defendant's Consolidated Daubert Motion, DE 2521 at 20. As he explains in the

report, Ortega's conclusion was based on: 1) the location of the murders relative to AUC Blocks;

2) the circumstances of the murders, which suggest that they were not common crimes; and 3)

statistics of the murders committed in the Uraba region. DE 2329 at 15. Instead of pointing out

flaws in these methodologies, the Defendant argues that "Ortega applied no discernable expert

methodology but merely regurgitated what the Plaintiffs said, then speculated regarding the weight

the jury should give such evidence, which is clearly improper under the third part of the Rule 702

test. Cook, 402 F.3d at 1110-11." Id. Since Mr. Ortega's credentials, methods and analysis are

3
The Defendant quotes from page 5 of the Report, which includes the word "important" in the
scope of the assignment. However, Mr. Ortega's opinion didn't go that far. Id. at 19.
4
Mr. Ortega testified in his deposition that from his experience as an FBI agent, it cost the AUC
approximately $10,000 to equip a member of the AUC including weapons, ammunition, uniforms,
and othe gear, and not including their salary. I did not purchase a copy of the transcript and am
relying on Mr. Ortega's written report.
5
Plaintiff Doe 840 has recently learned that AUC commander Raul Hasbun confessed to this crime
two years ago. DE 2540-4 at 10-11. However, the Doe 840 never received notice of this, until
she appeared in person at the fiscalia to request a new letter, since her previous correspondence
from the fiscalia appeared too old to receive an Appostile. What she received was a notarization
of her original letter, and a new letter, and computer form, stating that Raul Hasbun confessed to
the crime on DATE. Id. However, this new letter is not part of the summary judgment record
and the Court should not rely on it.
3
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 4 of 15

unimpeachable, and he did not offer an opinion on the importance of Chiquita's financing to the

AUC, the Defendant's Motion should be denied.

ARGUMENT
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that a witness who is qualified as an expert by

knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion or

otherwise if:

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine afact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and,
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the
case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702. In applying Rule 702 and the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell

Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), district courts are viewed as gatekeepers responsible for

ensuring "that speculative, unreliable expert testimony does not reach the jury." Hughes v. Kia

Motors Corp., No. 13-10922 at *22 (11th Cir. Sept. 12, 2014), quoting McCorvey v. Baxter

Healthcare Corp., 298 F.3d 1253, 1256 (11th Cir. 2002). Whether an expert's testimony is reliable

depends on the "particular facts and circumstances of the particular case." Kumho Tire Co. v.

Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999).6

A. Mr. Ortega's specialized knowledge will help the jury understand the
evidence.

6
Law enforcement officers may also testify to opinions under FRE 701, depending on the
sophistication of the opinion. See Advisory Committee Notes to 2010 Amendment to Rule 701,
citing United States v. Figueroa-Lopez, 125 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 1997). In Figuera-Lopez,
law enforcement agents were allowed to testify that the defendant was acting suspiciously without
being qualified as Rule 702 experts; however, Rule 702 applied where the agents testified on the
basis of experience that the defendant was using code words to refer to drug quantities and prices.
4
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 5 of 15

From approximately 2004 to 2010, Manuel Ortega investigated Chiquita’s payments to the

AUC in his job as a Special Agent of the FBI. Ortega Declaration, DE 2329 at 4. His investigative

work included interviewing incarcerated AUC members to determine amounts paid by Chiquita to

that organization. Id. He also interviewed demobilized former AUC members. Id. He testified

that he is personally familiar with Chiquita’s payments to the AUC. Id. His career at the FBI

spanned from 1986 to 2012. Id. at 3. Since 1990, most of his work has involved investigations of

criminal activity in Colombia. Id. This includes organized criminal groups in Colombia, such as

the FARC, ELN, and the AUC. Id. He also has significant on-the-ground experience in Colombia,

having traveled extensively across the country. Id.

During his 25 years at the FBI, he gained significant experience in the conducting criminal

and counter-terrorism investigations. Id. This includes investigations into the identity of groups

that conducted kidnappings and murders of American citizens in Colombia, Panama, as well as

other Latin American and Caribbean countries. Id. He also gained significant experience

regarding terrorist groups that operated, such as, Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia

(FARC), the Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN), the Ejercito Popular de Liberacion (EPL),

the Movimiento 19 de Abril (M-19), and the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC). Id.

He attended FBI academy at Quantico, Virginia in 1986. At the academy he received

training on numerous topic, including how to develop and run cases, legal training (presentation

of evidence, admissibility of evidence, etc.), case documentation, development and evaluation of

evidence, evidence collection, chain of custody, case investigation, protocols, informant handling,

informant development, collection and evaluation of physical evidence, and interviewing

techniques. Id.

5
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 6 of 15

Throughout his career, Mr. Ortega also received ongoing “in-service” training. Id. This

in-service training focused on subject matters related to work on particular squads (terrorism,

Kidnapping, and Drugs), and the nature of the investigative duties on each squad. Id. He received

training on, among other things, identification of terrorist groups responsible for perpetrating

Kidnapping/Murders, and substantive training on terrorist groups globally, geographic reach,

nature, and the history of such groups including AUC, FARC, ELN, and al Qaeda. Id.

Additionally, through his experience and work in the field, as well as case related research on Latin

American terrorist organizations, he has familiarity with the ELN, EPL, FARC, M-19, and

paramilitary organizations (AUC). Id. He also received in-service training on how to conduct

investigations (criminal, kidnapping, murders, Drug trafficking, etc.), source handling, undercover

operations and undercover certifications, as well as training on how to develop and evaluate the

credibility of evidence to support a case for possible prosecution. Id. From 1987 until 1990, he

worked with the Bank Robbery/fugitive Squad in Miami, Florida. Id. In this role, he investigated

and developed evidence regarding bank robbery cases in south Florida. Id.

From 1990 through 1997, he worked on Drug squads and focused on drug trafficking and

drug trafficking organizations in Colombia. Id. at 4. During this period, he also became familiar

with the history and operations of groups perpetrating organized crimes in Colombia, such as the

FARC, ELN, EPL, M-19, and the AUC. Id. He liaised with foreign services, and coordinated

routes being used by drug traffickers. Id.

From 1997 until 2001, he performed Racketeering Investigations. Id. In this role, he

generated sources and developed cases for transfer to case agents. Id. In this period, he became

very familiar with the history and operations of the AUC by conducting source interviews. Id.

For instance, he interviewed individuals who were closely connected to one of the founder of the

6
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 7 of 15

AUC, Carlos Castano. Id. These individuals include Rodrigo Tovar Pupo (Jorge 40), Hebert

Velosa Garcia ( HH, Cara Pollo) and other block leaders. Id. he was the lead investigator, for the

FBI in the following cases; Chiquita, and the three American missionaries, who where

kidnapped/murdered out of Pucuro Panama. Id.

After 9/11, his focus shifted to terrorism. Id. From the fall of 2001 until his retirement

from the FBI in 2012, he focused exclusively on counter terrorism investigations, including the

Kidnappings and murders of American citizens by foreign terrorist organizations. Id. Initially,

from 2001 to 2004, he worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and served the remaining eight

years of his FBI career on the Extraterritorial Squad. Id. In this role he coordinated international

terrorism investigations in Caribbean and Latin American countries. Id. Throughout his tenure

on the Extraterritorial Squad, he also coordinated and conducted training presentations and

domestic and international seminars. Id.

In addition to numerous other investigations, from approximately 2004 to 2010, Mr. Ortega

investigated Chiquita’s payments to the AUC. Id. at 4. His investigative work included

interviewing incarcerated AUC members to determine amounts paid by Chiquita to that

organization. Id. at 4. He also interviewed demobilized former AUC members. Id. He is

personally familiar with Chiquita’s payments to the AUC. Id. He is uniquely qualified as an

expert in this case.

1. Courts routinely defer to the informed judgment of Executive Branch

officials.

As a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the witness acquired significant

expertise in the fields of drug trafficking and international terrorism. The Supreme Court has

cautioned the courts to defer to the informed judgment of Executive Branch national security

personnel working in this field:

7
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 8 of 15

In analyzing whether it is possible in practice to distinguish material support for a foreign

terrorist group’s violent activities and its nonviolent activities, we do not rely exclusively
on our own inferences drawn from the record evidence. We have before us an affidavit
stating the Executive Branch’s conclusion on that question. The State Department informs
us that “[t]he experience and analysis of the U. S. government agencies charged with
combating terrorism strongly suppor[t]” Congress’s finding that all contributions to foreign
terrorist organizations further their terrorism. In the Executive’s view: “Given the purposes,
organizational structure, and clandestine nature of foreign terrorist organizations, it is
highly likely that any material support to these organizations will ultimately inure to the
benefit of their criminal, terrorist functions—regardless of whether such support was
ostensibly intended to support non-violent, non-terrorist activities.”
... We have noted that “neither the Members of this Court nor most federal judges begin
the day with briefings that may describe new and serious threats to our Nation and its
people.” Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 797 (2008). It is vital in this context “not to
substitute . . . our own evaluation of evidence for a reasonable evaluation by the Legislative
Branch.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U. S. 57, 68 (1981). See Wald, 468 U. S., at 242; Haig
v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 292 (1981). Our precedents, old and new, make clear that concerns
of national security and foreign relations do not warrant abdication of the judicial role. We
do not defer to the Government’s reading of the First Amendment, even when such interests
are at stake. We are one with the dissent that the Government’s “authority and expertise in
these matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the
protection that the Constitution grants to individuals.” Post, at 23. But when it comes to
collecting evidence and drawing factual inferences in this area, “the lack of competence on
the part of the courts is marked,” Rostker, supra, at 65, and respect for the Government’s
conclusions is appropriate.

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 2727-28 (2010) (citations to

record omitted) Although the Court need not defer to any of Mr. Ortega's opinions to decide a

Daubert motion, in other situations, it might.

B. Mr. Ortega's testimony is based on sufficient facts and data.

The six homicides Ortega analyzed occured in the context of a paramilitary campaign of

murder and torture aimed at civilian supporters of left-wing political organizations, which were

seen as supportive of the FARC guerrillas. DE 2329 at 6. The murders occurred in one of the

most violent regions of the conflict, Urabá, which is also where the Defendant's Colombian

subsidiary Banadex was located. Id.

8
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 9 of 15

He saw no evidence that any of the six victims were collaborating with the guerrillas. Id.

One defied a curfew that was in place, and was killed after ignoring an instruction by the

parmilitaries to stop, probably because he was hard of hearing. Id. The other was abucted in front

of his family in the middle of the night by armed assailants, one of whom was identified and named

by the plaintiff. Id. In several cases, the victim was not the only person in the family who was

murdered by the paramilitaries. Id. This is consistent with the belief generally held by the

paramilitaries that entire families supported the guerrillas and had to be exterminated. In none of

the six cases he reviewed were the victims armed. Id.

At the time these murders occured, the Colombian authorities were unable or unwilling to

investigate the thousands of murders occuring in Urabá. Id. This was due to a number of factors,

including that the general public was often too frightened to cooperate with the police, the

reputation for ineffectiveness and corruptability of the Colombian justice system, and the fact that

the Colombian army and some police officers collaborated with the paramilitaries or were

members. Id.

Mr. Ortega testified that the locations of the murders were important in determining

responsibility. Id. at 15. They all occurred in urban areas in Apartado and Turbo, in Uraba. Id.

These towns were controlled by the AUC between 1995 and 1997, the range of dates of the cases

reviewed. Id. They were controlled by the Bloque Bananero of the AUC, with Turbo under the

control of Ever Veloza Garcia (HH), and in Apartado under the control of Raul Hasbun. Id. The

only armed groups that operated in urban areas at that time where members of the AUC. Id. It

would be highly unlikely for groups of common criminals to operate in an area controlled by the

AUC. Id.

9
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 10 of 15

Mr. Ortega also explained that the AUC used distinctive modus operandi, that distingiush

their crimes from those of the FARC or of common criminals. Id. at 16. The AUC would generally

patrol urban areas on motorcycles, with one person driving the motorcycle and the secound rider

seated facing backwards, armed with an assault rifle. Id. When tasked with an operation, they

would generally kidnap the target and kill them in another location. Id. Depending the message

their commanders wanted to send, they would either cause the body to disappear or leave it to be

found. Id. It was common practice to take the victim's ID card as proof of the mission's

completion. Id. The most common signature of an execution is a gunshot wound to the victim's

head. Id.

Mr. Ortega also relied on massacre statistics published by the National Center for Historical

Memory, an agency of the Colombian government. Id. at 17. Of the 1982 massacres documented

in all of Colombia between 1980 and 2012, 1166 were committed by the paramilitaries, 343 by the

guerrillas, 158 by the Colombian military, and 295 which remained unsolved. Id. Between 1981

and 2012, 16,346 incidents of selective assassination produced 23,161 victims, of which 8,903

(38%) were committed by paramilitaries, 3,899 (16.8%) by the guerrillas, 6,406 (27.7% ) by

unknown groups, 2,339 (10.1%) by the Colombian military, 1,511 (6.5%) by unknown individuals,

and the remainder committed by other groups or by more than one group. Id. In Mr. Ortega's

opinion, the figures show that, on a national level, the paramiltiaries killed more than twice as

many people as the guerrillas. Id. However, when territorial control is considered, the vast

majority of these crimes were committed by the group in control. Id. The Defendant made no

attempt to challenge these statistics, or of Mr. Ortega's interpretation of them.

10
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 11 of 15

1. Doe 378

The victim was killed in 1997 as he returned from watching a soccer game on a projection

screen in a local park in Chigorodo, Colombia. Ortega Report at 10. The victim worked on several

banana farms as an independent contractor, including Banafinca and El Retiro, which was owned

by Banadex and one of the farms appearing in records delivered to the Colombian fiscalía by

paramilitary Raul Hasbun. Id.

The AUC had imposed a curfew that prohibited anyone from leaving their house at night.

Id. The victim's family implored him not to go and to respect the curfew, but the victim ignored

the advice and went to watch the game anyway. Id. When the victim was on his way home, as he

passed a gas station, two men arrived, called him by his name, and then shot him in the back when

he ignored them. Id. The victim was almost deaf and the plaintiff thinks that he may not have heard

them. Id. The paramilitaries took the victim's identification card. Id. The murder was witnessed by

several people including a woman who observed the murder from the balcony of her home, and

told the details to the plaintiff. Id. Significantly, other people were killed during the same period

of time for defying the curfew. Id. The Plaintiff was recognized as a war crimes victim by Accion

Social, and received benefits. Id.7

7
Documentary evidence of the murder in case Doe 378 is filed under seal as Sealed Exhibit 5 to
DE 2325. English translations are filed under seal as Sealed Exhibit 6. This includes the victim's
death certificate (WOLF000105), a letter from Medicina Legal, the national forensic agency
(WOLF000106), a letter from the prosecutor's office (WOLF000107), a sworn declaration
regarding family relations (WOLF000111), another letter from the prosecutor's office
(WOLF000114), a letter from Acción Sociál, the USAID-sponsored relief agency for war crimes
victims (WOLF000117-119), a letter from the Unidad para la Atencion y Reparacion Integral a las
Victimas (WOLF000120), another letter from Accion Social (WOLF000121) and a signed and
stamped request from the victim for benefits from Accion Social (WOLF000122). These
documents were translated into English by Bert Ortiz, who is licensed by the Colombian Ministry
of Exterior Relations to translate legal documents. Excerpts from the deposition of Doe 368 were
previously filed under seal as Sealed Exhbit 3 to Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Preclude
Continued Use of Pseudonyms. DE 2276. Although the Plaintiff did describe the incident in her
11
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 12 of 15

2. Doe 840

The victim was taken from his home and murdered in 2001. Ortega Report, DE 2329 at

13. At around 3:30 AM, five armed men arrived at victim’s home, kidnapped him, and shot him

four blocks away. Id. The family of about eight people were home and saw the abduction. Id.

They did not see the murder, but heard the shots and then found the body. Id. The victim was a

professional soldier in the Colombian army. Id. This murder occurred in Apartado at a time when

the AUC killed thousands of people. Id.

The plaintiff recognized one of the men who abducted the victim, and named him in her

deposition. See Transcript Excerpts, filed under seal as DE 2274 at 45. She stated that he is a

known AUC commander and is in prison for another murder. Id. Another five members of the

plaintiffs' family were also killed, and two were raped. She believes that all these crimes were

committed by the AUC. Id. The plaintiff was recognized as a victim by Accion Social. Id.8

C. Mr. Ortega's testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods.

An opinion based on training and experience is within the scope of Rule 702. See Fed. R.

Evid. Advisory Committee's note to 2000 Amendments. A witness can be an expert based on

deposition, in this excerpt she only describes the danger of participating in this lawsuit, and her
interaction with Acción Social and the Commission of Justice and Peace. Id.
8
Documentary evidence of the murder of Doe 840 is filed under seal as Sealed Exhibit 7 to DE
2325. English translations are filed under seal as Sealed Exhibit 8. This includes the victim's death
certificate (WOLF000310), a letter from Accion Social (WOLF000314), another letter from
Accion Social (WOLF000315), a letter from the prosecutor's office (WOLF000317), as letter from
the Commission of Justice and Peace (WOLF000318-319), and the victim's birth certificate
(WOLF000325). In addtion, the birth certificate of the plaintiff's daughter, of the plaintiff, and of
her spouse, although they are not Bates-numbered. These documents have also been translated into
English by Bert Ortiz, licensed by the Colombian Ministry of Exterior Relations to translate legal
documents, in Exhibit 8. Excerpts from the deposition of Doe 840 were previously filed under seal
as Sealed Exhbit 1 to Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Preclude Continued Use of
Pseudonyms. DE 2274 She saw the victim's abduction and named one of the perpetrators. Id. at
45. She also testified that numerous other family members had been murdered and raped by the
AUC. Id. at 16. On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff Doe 840 died of natural causes. She had been
deposed in Fort Lauderdale, FL on September 28, 2017.
12
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 13 of 15

experience alone, but the district court must "require an experiential witness to 'explain how [his]

experience leads to the conclusion reached, why [his] experience is a sufficient basis for the

opinion, and how [his] experience is reliably applied to the facts.'" United States v. Wilson, 484

R.3d 267, 274 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee's note to 2000

amendments)

The Defendant's argument appears to be that Mr. Ortega didn't verify the facts of the cases

himself. DE 2521 at 20. However, under Fed. R. Evid. 703, an expert may base an opinion on

facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. Id. If

experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an

opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. Id. Notably,

Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is based on facts as interpreted

by Mr. Ortega, which doesn't depend on the admissibility of any Colombian government

documents.

As he stated in his expert report, he formed his opinions based on his training and

experience investigating terrorism, Kidnapping/murders, and Drugs over the course of his career

as a Special Agent in the FBI and as a private consultant. DE 2329 at 6. That is, he looked at the

evidence, including the background of the conflict in the Uraba region, the modus operandi of the

AUC, and drew reasonable inferences from his interviews with the plaintiffs and the documents

they had at the time.

D. Mr. Ortega reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the
cases.

Mr. Ortega applied the principles and methods he learned from working for the FBI, which

are the same ones he used during his career to solve kidnappings and murders committed by other

Colombian drug traffickers and terrorists, including members of the FARC and AUC. The Court

13
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 14 of 15

shouldn't conflate his reasonable inferences with improper speculation. Seamon v. Remington

Arms, 813 F.3d 983, 989 (11th Cir. 2016). See Adams v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 760 F.3d 1322, 1328-

29 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that it was manifestly erroneous for the district court to exclude an

expert on the basis that her opinion was “an ipse dixit assessment,” when the record was to the

contrary); United States v. Alabama Power Co., 730 F.3d 1278, 1284-88 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding

that the exclusion of an expert was an abuse of discretion because the district court

mischaracterized the evidence supporting the expert’s opinion); United Fire & Cas. Co. v.

Whirlpool Corp., 704 F.3d 1338, 1341-42 (11th Cir. 2013) (reversing the exclusion of a portion of

an expert’s testimony because the district court had failed to consider the evidence supporting that

opinion).

Conclusion

It's within the Court's discretion whether to decide Defendant's Daubert challenge to

Plaintiffs expert witness Manuel Ortega, or to leave the decision for the transferor Court. The

Plaintiffs have no objection if this Court wants to decide this. Mr. Ortega analyzed these

kidnappings and murders using the same methods he learned and used to investigate similar crimes

as a Special Agent of the FBI in working in Colombia. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should

DENY the Defendant's Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Wolf

_______________________
Paul Wolf, DC Bar #480285
Attorney for Plaintiffs
P.O. Box 21840
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 431-6986
paulwolf@yahoo.com
fax: n/a
September 1, 2019

14
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 2547 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2019 Page 15 of 15

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on this 1st day of September, 2019, I filed the foregoing document
with the cleark of the Court using the Court's Elexctronic Filing (ECF) system, which will send
electronic notices to all persons entitled to receive them.

/s/ Paul Wolf

______________
Paul Wolf

15