funds operate in general may shed some light on the defendants’ intent in forming the limited partnerships (LP), the rationale for some of the LPs’ management practices, and whether the LPs indeed intended to form a partnership or a joint venture. Details of private equity funds’ investment and management practices are outside the domain of an ordinary person’s knowledge, and might be helpful to a decisionmaker. However, the plaintiffs have a valid point when they challenge Adams’s testimony that holding the defendants accountable would have a detrimental effect on the private equity industry. Such policy-type arguments fall outside of the scope of expert testimony sanctioned by Rule 702, and are irrelevant to issues at hand. Cf. Chavez v. Carranza, 559 F.3d 486, 498 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>) (citing Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d
holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible holding that rules of evidence do not permit an expert to give opinion or state legal conclusions regarding a question of law holding inadmissible an affidavit by copyright law expert opining that a term was suggestive rather than descriptive because his opinion was a conclusion of law holding that lay witness opinion as to guilt of defendant inadmissible holding that an administrative agencys decision may not be based upon inadmissible expert opinion