Plaintiff is a Delaware limited liability business suing multiple individuals and related trusts for securities fraud arising out of a transaction in which Defendants allegedly induced Plaintiff to purchase over $25 million of Devi Holdings stock through fraudulent misrepresentations about Devi’s financial condition and unpaid tax liabilities. Devi Holdings was a business engaged in engaged in cannabis cultivation and production.

Plaintiff offered the testimony of experts Dr. Zamir K. Punja and Alexander Cooley. Defendants filed a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Punja and a joint motion to exclude the testimony of Cooley while Plaintiff filed an omnibus motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ proffered experts, Beau Whitney and Barbara Webb.

Plant Pathology Expert Witness

Dr. Zamir K. Punja has been engaged in the study of plant pathology for over 40 years. He received his Bachelor of Science (Hons.) in Plant Science, Agriculture from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, and earned a Master of Science (MSc) and a Doctorate (Ph.D.) in Plant Pathology from the University of California, Davis, California, USA.

Get the full story on challenges to Zamir Punja’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Cannabis Expert Witness

Alexander Cooley has nearly twenty years of experience in the cannabis and hemp industries, including senior operational roles in cannabis companies, consulting work, and policy and regulatory engagement.

Want to know more about the challenges Alex Cooley has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Economics Expert Witness

Beau Whitney is an economist and business operations and governmental affairs specialist with over 20 years of experience. In 2014, he founded Whitney Economics, a cannabis and hemp business consulting, data, and economic research firm based in Portland, Oregon.

Discover more cases with Beau Whitney as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

Accounting Expert Witness

Barbara Webb has a MAcc in Accounting from the University of Michigan. She is a Certified Public Accountant who specializes in providing complex tax advisory services and audit support for cannabis businesses.

Gain a comprehensive understanding of Barbara Webb’s qualifications with her Expert Witness Profile report.

Discussion by the Court

**A. Defendants’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Zamir Punja**

Through Punja’s testimony, Plaintiff sought to prove that Devi’s cannabis was already widely infected with HLVd by early 2021, Defendants knew or should have known it, and they fraudulently concealed this when inducing Plaintiff to buy $25 million in shares. Discovery revealed that by early 2022 Devi’s Arizona facility was experiencing a widespread outbreak of HLVd, a pathogen known to cause significant reductions in cannabis yield and quality. Punja opined that the level of HLVd infection documented in 2022 could only have resulted from repeated propagation cycles over multiple years, and therefore the viroid was present—and detectable—by early 2021, during the period in which Defendants were soliciting Plaintiff’s investment.

Defendants sought exclusion of Punja’s testimony on the grounds that it is unreliable, speculative, and irrelevant to the claims pled.

Defendants argued that Punja’s opinions are speculative because he lacked direct HLVd test results from 2021. But the absence of such data is itself a product of Devi’s failure to test. Therefore, Punja’s opinion is consistent with accepted scientific practice.

Defendants argued that HLVd is irrelevant because the Amended Complaint does not expressly reference it, but the Complaint alleged that Defendants concealed that “the vast majority” of Devi’s cannabis was unsellable—a fact directly tied to Devi’s financial condition and the value of the shares Plaintiff purchased.

As a result, Punja’s testimony is therefore relevant to whether Defendants misrepresented or concealed material facts about Devi’s operational viability and financial health.

B. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony by Alex Cooley

Defendants argued that Cooley is unqualified because he is not a CPA and lacked formal accounting or tax credentials. But Plaintiff did not offer Cooley as a general accounting or tax expert. Rather, he is offered to explain cannabis-industry-specific accounting issues.

Defendants contended that Cooley used no methodology and that his opinions were speculative because he did not calculate Devi’s exact tax liability. However, Cooley did not purport to calculate Devi’s tax liability. Rather, Cooley’s opinions addressed whether Devi’s accounting practices—such as routing revenue through management companies, zeroing out subsidiary income, and classifying expenses as cost of goods sold—were inconsistent with representations that all taxes were paid, and no accounting issues existed.

Lastly, to the extent the Defendants argued that Cooley invaded the province of the factfinder, any concerns about overreach can be addressed through cross-examination.

C. Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendants’ Proffered Experts

1. Beau Whitney

Whitney is an economist retained to offer opinions regarding cannabis-industry market conditions and to rebut the reports of Plaintiff’s experts, Alex Cooley and Zamir Punja. Plaintiff sought exclusion on the grounds that Whitney’s rebuttal opinions rested on mischaracterizations of Cooley’s report, that his cannabis-market analysis was generic and irrelevant to Plaintiff’s rescission-only claims, that he lacked the qualifications and methodology necessary to rebut Punja’s opinions, and that portions of his report improperly addressed the mental states or beliefs of the parties.

Whitney’s background in cannabis-industry economics, operations, and market analysis provided sufficient expertise to offer the opinions disclosed in his report. Moreover, his rebuttal of Cooley and Punja is grounded in his professional experience and review of the record. Plaintiff’s objections—whether directed at Whitney’s characterization of Cooley’s opinions, the breadth of his market analysis, or the depth of his engagement with HLVd-related materials—are better addressed through cross-examination and the Court’s own evaluation of the weight to be afforded his testimony.

2. Barbara Webb

Webb is a certified public accountant retained to rebut Cooley’s opinions concerning Devi’s accounting practices and tax-related communications. Plaintiff argued that Webb’s testimony should be excluded because it consists largely of narrative summaries and speculative interpretations of internal emails rather than the application of specialized accounting expertise.
Webb is a CPA with specialized experience in cannabis-industry tax and accounting practices.

Her rebuttal opinions responded directly to Cooley’s analysis of Devi’s accounting records and tax-related communications. Plaintiff’s challenges largely concerned the inferences Webb drew from internal emails and the extent to which those inferences differ from Cooley’s.

In conclusion, the Court is well-positioned to distinguish between proper expert analysis and factual narrative, and to disregard any testimony that may stray beyond the permissible scope.

Held

1) The Court denied Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Zamir Punja.

2) The Court denied Defendants’ joint motion to exclude the opinion testimony by Alex Cooley.

3) The Court denied Plaintiff’s omnibus motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ proffered experts, Beau Whitney and Barbara Webb.

Key Takeaway

An expert is not required to possess the ideal dataset; rather, the expert must employ a reliable methodology given the available evidence. Punja’s opinions are not speculative merely because he lacked direct HLVd test results from 2021, particularly where the absence of such data is itself a product of Devi’s failure to conduct testing.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	2 3 Suited, LLC V. Jigarkumar Patel
Docket Number:	9:23cv81503
Court Name:	United States District Court, Florida Southern
Order Date:	February 18, 2026

Category: Cannabis Expert Witness

Plant Pathology Expert Allowed to Opine on HLVd Infection

Plant Pathology Expert Allowed to Opine on HLVd Infection