ADDITIONAL CASE OOO RM Invest, Varwood Holdings, Ltd. and Tcahai Hairullaevich Katcaev, Counter-Plaintiffs, v. Alan L. Frank Law Associates, P.C., Alan L. Frank and Eugene A. Khavinson, Counter-Defendants MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Alan L. Frank Law Associates, P.C. (“Frank Firm”) commenced this interpleader action on February 22, 2016 against Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs OOO RM Invest (“RM”), Varwood Holdings, Ltd. (“Varwood”), and Tcahai Hairullaevich Katcaev (collectively, the “Settling Parties”) and Defendants Sasha Schmdt and Sergey Pirozhnikov. (Compl. (Dkt. 1)
1-6.) The action arises from a $2.9 million settlement agreement between the Settling Parties and several nonparties. (Settling Parties’ Rule 56.1 Stmt. (“Settling Parties’ 56.1″) (Dkt. 277-1) 15.) The Settling Parties subsequently asserted counterclaims against Frank Firm and its principal, Alan L. Frank (collectively, the “Frank Parties”), and Eugene A. Khavinson, alleging, inter alia, legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. (Settling Parties’ Answer, Crossclaim, and Counterclaim (“Counterclaim”) (Dkt. 169) at 9-19.) In support of the damages element of their counterclaim, the Settling Parties retained Boris Yatsenko, a Moscow-based economist with Ernst & Young, as an expert. Pending before the court is the Frank Parties’ Motion to Preclude the admission of Mr. Yatsenko’s testimony. (See Mot. to Preclude (Dkt. 321); Mem. of Law in Opp. to Mot. to Preclude (“Mot. to Preclude Opp.”) (Dkt. 323); Reply in Support of Mot. to Preclude (“Mot. to Preclude Reply”) (Dkt. 320).) Also pending is the Frank Parties’ Motion to Strike a declaration by Mr. Yatsenko that the Settling Parties addended to their opposition memorandum in response to the Frank Parties’ Motion to Preclude. (See Mot. to Strike Decl. of Boris Yatsenko (“Mot. to Strike”) (Dkt. 318); Mem. of Law in Opp. to Mot. to Strike (“Mot. to Strike Opp.”) (Dkt. 333); Reply Mem. in Support of Mot. to Strike (“Mot. to Strike Reply”) (Dkt. 334).) For the reasons explained below, the Frank Parties’ (Dkt. 321) Motion to Preclude is DENIED and their (Dkt. 318) Motion to Strike is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND The court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this case, and it provides a summary of that history only insofar as it is necessary to the resolution of the pending motions.1 Except as otherwise indicated, the facts in this section are not in dispute. A. Factual Background RM is a Russian limited liability company with its principal place of business in Russia. (Settling Parties’ 56.1 1.) At the time this lawsuit was filed, Defendants Katcaev, Schmdt, and Pirozhnikov were the three “participants” who held equity in RM. (Id.
