The final two sections of the expert report also are rife with legal
opinion, and neither provides a "complete statement of all opinions"
expressed, a "basis and reasons" for the statements, or any "data or
other information considered" in the formation of Mr. Leiper's conclusory
statements. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B); Fed R. Evid. 705. Quite the
opposite, by Mr. Leiper's own admission, these sections operate on
assumptions that this Court does not find substantiated by the
supplemental report. For all of these reasons, the Court grants
defendant's motion to strike the initial and supplemental reports of
plaintiff's expert, Mr. Leslie A. Leiper.*fn4
III. DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
Finally, plaintiff challenges defendant's counterclaim, arguing that
defendant has failed to adequately allege how or in what way PaL-Tech was
harmed by plaintiff. The Court is not persuaded by plaintiff's argument.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only that a
pleading contain a short and plain statement of the claim and the grounds
on which it is based. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957);
Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
Notice pleading, by its very nature, dictates that a complaint need only
provide the defendant with fair notice of the claims at issue. See Glymph
v. District of Columbia, 180 F. Supp.2d 111, 114 (D.D.C. 2001). A
complaint should be dismissed for failure to state claim only if "it
appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. at 45-46. The counterclaim alleges a violation of
Virginia's Uniform Trade Secrets Act and a breach of contract resulting
from the disclosure and retention of confidential information. Treating
all of PaL-Tech's asserted facts as true, as the Court must in
considering a motion to dismiss, the nature of the contract and the facts
alleged do not permit this Court to say that PaL-Tech could not prove any
set of facts that would entitle it to relief.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion was issued on
September 25, 2002.
This matter is before the Court on defendant's motions to dismiss Count
I of the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to
strike plaintiff's expert report, as well as plaintiff's motion to
dismiss defendant's counterclaim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim on which relief can
be granted. After careful consideration of the motions, oppositions and
replies, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss Count I for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction  is DENIED; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's Rule
26(a)(2) report submitted by Mr. Leslie A. Leiper  is GRANTED; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's
counterclaim  is DENIED. An Opinion explaining
the Court's reasoning will follow in due course.