Tag: Expert Testimony
-
Court excludes the unsubstantiated testimony of labor standards expert witness on account of non-compliance with the disclosure requirements of Rule 26
The Court excluded the Plaintiffs’ expert witness report in this fair labor standards act case for noncompliance with Rule 26 requirements. The report lacked a detailed explanation of the expert’s methodology and opinions. It relied on facts not yet available through discovery. Further, it failed to identify supporting exhibits or provide the expert’s qualifications and…
-
Court qualifies retired judge as legal malpractice expert witness in South Dakota
This case examined the admissibility of expert testimony on the standard of care in a South Dakota legal malpractice claim. The Court ruled the Plaintiff’s expert could opine on the national standard despite lacking state-specific credentials. The Court found no evidence the alleged attorney errors were sufficiently tied to unique local rules and customs to…
-
Orthopedic expert testimony on causation survives unreliable methodology challenge in Louisiana
The District Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert Dr. Millet. Though Dr. Millet did not examine the Plaintiff and made some factual assumptions, the Court found his methodology of reviewing medical records combined with his experience was sufficiently reliable under Daubert. The Court held disputes over the basis for an…
-
Unreliable testimony by metrology and food safety expert excluded in class action for false and deceptive advertising
In this class action, the court excluded expert testimony alleging Laird Superfood mislabeled serving sizes on its products. The court found the expert’s consumer-perspective testing methodology lacked scientific reliability controls and details. His opinions were also irrelevant to whether Laird followed FDA labeling rules. Without the expert testimony, the plaintiff could not prove Laird violated…
-
Court admits expert testimony regarding restrictive covenants in public nuisance case
In Stone v. Harley Marine, the court denied Harley’s attempt to exclude Plaintiff’s expert, finding his long experience preparing neighborhood analyses qualified him to opine on land use and deed restrictions. The court held that the expert employed a reliable methodology involving site inspection and document review. While Harley could make specific objections at trial,…
-
FTX Founder’s Experts Face Exclusion in Cryptocurrency Fraud Case
The upcoming fraud trial of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried recently faced a major development regarding expert witnesses. Federal prosecutors filed motions to completely exclude all seven expert witnesses noticed by Bankman-Fried’s defense team. The Government argues the testimony of experts including a barrister, professors, and industry professionals would be irrelevant, unreliable, confusing, or prejudicial. Specifically,…
-
California Court admits the testimony of film and television industry experts in copyright infringement action
Plaintiffs allege certain episodes of Defendants’ shows Prank Encounters and Double Cross infringe episodes of Plaintiffs’ show Scare Tactics. The court denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes remain regarding substantial similarity and damages. The court also largely denies motions to exclude expert testimony on similarity and damages, ruling that flawed assumptions and…
-
Colorado Court weighs reliable basis of Pathology Expert’s testimony over semantics in medical negligence suit
The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument to exclude the Defense expert’s opinion that high mitotic rates correlate with poor prognosis. While the Plaintiff insisted this equated to an unreliable, unsupported “prediction” of causation, the court found the dispute merely semantic. The expert never explicitly opined mitotic rates “predict” malignancy. Rather, he suggested an “association” or…
-
Eleventh Circuit clarifies the difference between the two types of expert witness disclosures under Rule 26
Eleventh Circuit elaborated on the difference between two types of expert witness requirements under Rule 26 in the instant case- a detailed written submission and a less extensive pretrail disclosure. #experttestimony #federalruleofcivilprocedure26(a)(2)(B) #federalruleofcivilprocedure26(a)(2)(C)
-
Nebraska Court excludes Employment Law Expert’s testimony in Employment Discrimination suit
Plaintiff, Amanda Benson offered the testimony of Dr. Christiane Tellefsen, a forensic psychiatry expert and Amy Oppenheimer, an employment law expert to substantiate it’s claims of employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against the Defendant, City of Lincoln. When City of Lincoln filed Daubert motions against both experts, the Court admitted the testimony of Dr. Christiane…
