Tag: Expert Testimony
-
Environmental Engineering Expert’s Land Use Analysis Excluded
In this water contamination case, Plaintiff Suffolk County Water Authority (“Suffolk”) brought suit against manufacturers Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) and Vibrantz Corporation (“Ferro”). Suffolk contended that dioxane-stabilized TCA is the source of dioxane contamination in the TCA Claim Wells and offered the opinions of its expert witnesses in support. Dow rebuts this proof through the…
-
Veterinary Medicine Expert Allowed to Opine on Sources of Contamination
Plaintiff Kim Gentry trains riders and horses in dressage. This professional negligence case concerns the untimely death of Gentry’s beloved horse, Dantique, and Gentry’s dashed hopes to perpetuate Dantique’s bloodline. Plaintiff retained an equine appraiser, Tanja Schnuderl, as well as a veterinary expert, Robert Boswell. Defendants sought to exclude the testimony of both experts. Equine…
-
Gynecology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Corporate Intent
In December 2020, Diana Dyer “was surgically implanted with an Aris™ Trans-Obturator Sling System (hereinafter the ‘Aris’), a pelvic mesh product and medical device designed, manufactured, and marketed by Defendants,” which “was intended to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.” Dyer claimed that she “has suffered, and continues to suffer, debilitating injuries” “as…
-
Insurance Expert Allowed to Opine on Sales Tax Depreciation Practices
Plaintiffs Melissa Pitkin and Dan Grout own a home together in Healdsburg, California. They hold a homeowner’s insurance policy from State Farm, policy number 57-C4-6752-1 (the “Policy”), which covered certain losses to their home and all of its contents. The Policy included the “main policy form” (FP-7955, CA) as well as a “homeowners endorsement form”…
-
Construction Expert Allowed to Opine on the Cause of the Leak
This is a subrogation action resulting from a water loss that occurred in January of 2021 at a single family home located in Cranston, Rhode Island. Defendant filed a motion to prevent one of Plaintiff’s experts—Thomas F. Zarek—from testifying as to the source of the damage at trial. Construction Expert Witness Thomas F. Zarek has…
-
Law Enforcement Expert Allowed to Opine on Mental Health
This case concerns a fatal officer-involved shooting that took place on February 5, 2023. Plaintiff Matilde Garza alleged that Defendants County of San Bernardino, Bill Abernathy, and Nicholas Krinder (collectively, “Defendants”) used excessive deadly force by shooting and killing Plaintiff’s son Antonio F. Garza, Jr. (the “Decedent”). Defendant filed motions to preclude the testimony of…
-
Food Science Expert Allowed to Opine on Meatless Meatballs
This case stems from a dispute over the production (or lack thereof) of meatless meatballs, which Plaintiff Ascot Valley Foods, Ltd. (“Plaintiff,” “Ascot,” or “Ascot Valley”) agreed to manufacture, package, and ship to Defendant ADF Foods (USA), Ltd. (“Defendant” or “ADF”). Ascot Valley brought claims under New York law for breach of contract, promissory estoppel,…
-
Dental Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Quality of Care
While detained in Division 6 of the Cook County Jail, Plaintiff Willie Clay began experiencing a toothache. Clay claimed that he waited nearly a month before being evaluated by a dentist and that, as a result of the delay, he experienced unnecessary pain. For that reason, he brought the present civil rights action on behalf…
-
Accident Reconstruction Expert’s Perception-Response Time Analysis Admitted
On September 30, 2021 at approximately 4:14 p.m., Defendant Marcus D. Jethrow, was operating a 2021 Volvo 760 tractor-trailer owned by Defendant Keep Trucking, LLC (Defendant Keep Trucking) traveling northbound on US 61 Hwy in Marion County, Missouri. At the same time, Keith Triplett (decedent) was operating a 1988 International Harvester grain hauler traveling east…
-
Expert Testimony on Deceptive Charges Excluded
Plaintiff Rickey Martin is a Florida resident who purchased corrective contact lenses from Defendant Lens.com’s website on five separate occasions between January and October, 2021. When making these online purchases, Plaintiff alleged that Lens.com charged him an undisclosed, unreasonable, and unlawful processing fee in violation of Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the “FUDTPA”).…
