Tag: Expert Report
-
Court Finds No Statement in the Marketing Expert Witness’ Survey to be Misleading
The underlying case concerns the alleged release of toxic chemicals from a manufacturing facility in Canoga Park between 1968 and 1970 by Litton Systems, Inc., an entity now owned by Defendants Northrop Grumman Corporation and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (“Northrop Grumman”). Plaintiffs moved for class certification on their claims for negligence, private nuisance, and trespass…
-
Testimony of Accounting Expert Witnesses Admitted Despite Using a Different Form of Calculation
This case arises out of a fee dispute between Defendant, CMR Construction & Roofing, LLC and Plaintiff, Crescent City Remodeling, LLC. CMR contracted Crescent to perform remediation work at Tangipahoa Parish School Board buildings following Hurricane Ida. Crescent later alleged that CMR breached the parties’ Joint Work Agreement by failing to compensate Crescent for its…
-
Economics Expert Witness’ Report ran afoul of Rule 26 Requirements
Plaintiff, a long-time employee of Chevron, filed his First Amended Complaint on August 22, 2023 and alleged that Chevron’s Pascagoula Refinery had been marred by racism and sexism, that his contributions to the company exceeded his compensation, and that “discriminatory practices have prevented him from being promoted.” The issue before the Court is whether the…
-
Construction Expert Witness’ Deposition Testimony deemed “Incomplete and Inconclusive”
This action stems from a trip and fall incident that occurred on July 19, 2019, while Plaintiff, Carolyn Simmons was walking and tripped along a dangerous and defective sidewalk located in front of Rite Aid in Ridgeland, South Carolina. The Defendant, Rite Aid of South Carolina, Inc., Walgreens, and Sitaras and Tzioros Properties, Inc., (hereafter…
-
Firearms & Ballistics Expert Witness’ Defect and Causation Opinions Excluded
A district judge in Alabama excluded the testimony of the firearms & ballistics expert because he did not offer any evidence to show any of the alleged dangerous conditions in order to support the product liability claims. Plaintiff James Andrew Scott, II filed a complaint against Remington Arms Company, LLC (“Remington”) alleging that defects in…
-
Management Consulting Expert Witness’ Opinions on Market Valuation of a Trademark Excluded
This is a case under New York’s Debtor & Creditor law to set aside a February 2019 transfer of the “Halston” and “Halston Heritage” trademarks to Defendants. Comfortex, a garment manufacturer based in Hong Kong alleged that Xcel had used its domination over House of Halston (“HOH”) and its wholly owned subsidiaries (defined below as…
-
Court discredits Legal Conclusions rendered by the Foreign Law Expert Witness
In December 2020, Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”) initiated legal action against Defendants Telit IoT Solutions, Inc. and Telit Communications LTD (collectively “Telit”), asserting infringement of six Philips patents crucial to telecommunications standards regulated by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). ETSI, which stands for the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, is a “standards body dealing with…
-
Court Excludes the Testimony of Finance Expert Witness for its inconsistency with GAAP Principles
This case involved Plaintiffs Fischler Kapel Holdings, LLC, Richard Fischler, and Paula Kapel (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Flavor Producers, LLC (“FPI”) and Jeffrey Harris (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiffs filed a motion in limine to exclude the expert report and testimony of Defendants’ expert, Timothy S. Ramey. The Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme by providing false…
-
Court held that the original intent of the expert report does not serve as sufficient grounds for its exclusion but nevertheless rejected some of food safety expert’s conclusions which were not based on his expertise
In a legal dispute concerning recalled pet treats, the Court significantly limited the admission of expert opinions that merely restated established facts or summarized existing evidence. The Court’s decision emphasized that experts should not serve as individuals who determine facts or evaluate evidence on behalf of the jury. Only one expert opinion was permitted, specifically…