Edelman, Mariner Move to Exclude Each Others’ Expert Witnesses

The legal battle between Edelman Financial Engines and Mariner Wealth Advisors shows no signs of slowing down. Both firms are pressing the judge to rule in their favor before the trial begins, while also attempting to exclude expert testimony from each other’s witnesses.
Last Friday, Mariner and Edelman filed oppositions to motions for summary judgment they had previously submitted. (Summary judgment is a legal determination where a judge rules in favor of one party without going to full trial.)
Edelman first sued Mariner in 2023, accusing the rival firm of enticing numerous advisors to break non-solicitation agreements and steal trade secrets. Mariner countered by alleging that Edelman is using the lawsuit to send “a chilling public message” aimed at stifling fair competition.
While much of Edelman’s opposition to Mariner’s summary judgment motion remains under seal and is not publicly available, Mariner’s response emphasized that the firm did not instruct former Edelman advisors to copy client names.
Mariner also argued that although a client list can sometimes qualify as a trade secret, a “mere list” of customer names does not meet that threshold. “A client list can only rise to the level of a protectable trade secret when the list contains something more than names and contact information,” the firm stated, pointing out that Edelman failed to cite any cases where “client names alone” were considered trade secrets.
Both companies have also filed motions to exclude expert testimony from opposing witnesses. Mariner’s expert witness is Phil Waxelbaum, an industry consultant with prior experience at Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan, and UBS. Edelman’s expert is David Bones, a forensic accountant at the risk consulting firm HKA.
As with many court filings in this case, several arguments and pieces of evidence— including the experts’ testimonies—remain under seal. However, in its September motion to exclude Bones’ testimony, Mariner’s attorneys argued that his opinions are inadmissible because they are neither based on sufficient facts and data nor derived from reliable principles or methods.
Edelman, in turn, challenged Waxelbaum’s testimony. They argued that his claim that Mariner’s recruitment and onboarding practices were “consistent with industry standards” is irrelevant. According to Edelman, just because Waxelbaum found Mariner’s practices to be “allegedly typical” does not mean they are legal.
“Moreover, if Mr. Waxelbaum is allowed to testify, it is highly likely that the jury will confuse what he deems the ‘industry standard’ with the legal standard, potentially absolving Mariner of liability simply because their practices were purportedly ‘customary,’ regardless of whether they violated the law,” Edelman’s September motion stated.
Earlier this year, Edelman also accused Mariner’s CEO, Marty Bicknell, of personally attempting to entice at least one Edelman advisor to switch firms. Edelman alleged that Bicknell directly contacted Edelman advisor Michael Horne, who resigned from Edelman in 2021.
A portion of a deposition transcript from Bicknell, submitted by Edelman as part of its opposition to Mariner’s summary judgment motion, shows the Mariner CEO acknowledged speaking with Horne before he was hired. However, details about the contents of that conversation have not been disclosed. Mariner declined to comment on the matter.
An Edelman spokesperson said the firm is “deeply committed to putting out clients’ best interests first,” adding that “every action we take is guided by our unwavering duty to our clients.” However, the spokesperson declined to comment specifically on the ongoing litigation.
https://www.wealthmanagement.com/ria-news/in-dueling-motions-edelman-and-mariner-move-to-exclude-other-firms-expert-witnesses