Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Information

  • Financial Expert Witness’ Cash Flow Analysis Admitted

    Financial Expert Witness’ Cash Flow Analysis Admitted

    Plaintiff, Yoel Weisshau challenged the constitutionality, under the dormant Commerce Clause, of the Port Authority’s toll and fare increases, in effect since September 18, 2011, on all the Port Authority’s bridges and tunnels within the Interstate Transportation Network (“ITN”).

    Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Elizabeth McCarthy’s affidavit and cash flow analysis, as well as her reply to Plaintiff’s expert report. By his motion, Plaintiff additionally sought an order “precluding the submissions of the expert witness Elizabeth McCarthy, precluding the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey from submitting any documents and printouts, calculations, and data downloaded from its General Ledger, and sanctioning Defendant for withholding discoverable information.”

    Financial Expert Witness

    Elizabeth M. “Libby” McCarthy joined the Port Authority as Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in January 2013.

    As CFO, McCarthy is responsible for overseeing, managing, and directing the Port Authority’s financial and accounting functions. This includes responsibility for over $5 billion of annual revenues, $3 billion of annual operating budget expenses, and the annual Capital Plan investments in support of the agency’s 2017 to 2026 Capital Plan.

    Discussion by the Court

    Plaintiff argued that McCarthy’s “cash flow analysis is pure hearsay and inadmissible for purposes of trial and summary judgment.” For Plaintiff, the information is hearsay because McCarthy “does not have personal knowledge of the figures cited in [the cash flow analysis] to be accurate” since her staff prepared information on her behalf. However, Rule 703 states that an expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed.

    The Court held that McCarthy’s staff made her aware of information from the General Ledger, which they reviewed and discussed. Thus, the Court declined to find here that McCarthy’s cash flow analysis is inadmissible hearsay.

    Held

    The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to strike Elizabeth McCarthy’s affidavit and cash flow analysis.

    Key Takeaway:

    As per 703, McCarthy’s “cash flow analysis” is not hearsay because McCarthy’s staff made her aware of information from the General Ledger, which they reviewed and discussed.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Weisshaus V. The Port Authority Of New York And New Jersey Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:11cv6616
    Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    Order Date: August 22, 2024
  • Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness Not Allowed to Opine About the Accident or on the Credibility of Individuals

    Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness Not Allowed to Opine About the Accident or on the Credibility of Individuals

    This matter arises from the tragic death of James Lemaster, a technician employed by Orbis Corporation at the company’s manufacturing plant in Georgetown, Kentucky. Lemaster’s job duties involved fitting industrial molds for filling and pressing to produce various made-to-order plastic hardware. On August 12, 2021, Lemaster was operating a hoist crane to lift and move a large mold encased within a mold fixture. The crane was hooked onto the mold fixture with a swivel hoist ring manufactured by Defendant American Drill Bushing (“ADB”). While the mold and mold fixture were suspended twenty feet above ground, ADB’s swivel hoist ring failed causing the mold and fixture to fall. Lemaster was struck by the falling mold and fixture, and he was killed on impact.

    Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on behalf of Lemaster’s estate and alleged that the fatality was the result of negligence on the part of ADB and/or Defendant Strohwig Industries, Inc. (“Strohwig”).

    Strohwig filed a motion to exclude certain testimony by Plaintiff’s expert Paul Sweeney, a mechanical engineer, with regard to Sweeney’s statements alleging that Strohwig and American Bushing were aware of why the lifting bracket failed but are intentionally not disclosing that information.

    Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness

    Paul Sweeney is a registered professional mechanical engineer in the State of Connecticut with decades of experience in the field of cranes and rigging.

    Sweeney began his career in 1984 by graduating #1 in his class at the GDEB Career Development Program which places engineers in the shipyard as supervisors after intensive training. Sweeney has held several positions at GDEB.  As Ship Superintendent he managed the construction of missile compartments on Trident submarines. In 1990 Sweeney was promoted to the position of Supervisor of Crane Engineering where he held technical oversight for the safety, repair, maintenance, modification, overhaul, inspection, quality control, testing, and certification of Electric Boat’s cranes and nuclear lifting and handling equipment.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    The Court held that Sweeney is not an expert on what the representatives of either American Drill or Strohwig know about the accident or on the credibility of individuals. Plaintiff did not offer Sweeney as an expert on those topics. Nor did he profess to be such an expert. He is a mechanical engineer. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion to exclude any testimony from Sweeney that either Defendant knew why the lifting bracket fell and was intentionally withholding that information.

    Strohwig also objected to a statement in which Sweeney seemed to indicate that the Strohwig lifting bracket may have caused the swivel hoist ring to fail. However, Plaintiff conceded that there is no evidence in the record to support Sweeney’s statement that the lifting bracket may have caused the swivel hoist ring to fail. Accordingly, the Court prohibited this testimony.

    In its motion to exclude Sweeney, Strohwig also moved the Court to strike Sweeney’s report from the record, largely because of the accusations that Strohwig and American Bushing knew of the cause of the accident and have withheld that information. While Plaintiff did not object, the Court denied this portion of the motion.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part Strohwig’s motion to exclude Paul Sweeney’s testimony.

    Key Takeaway:

    Since Sweeney is not an expert on what the representatives of either American Drill or Strohwig know about the accident or on the credibility of individuals, the Court rejected any testimony by Sweeney that indicated that either Defendant knew why the lifting bracket fell and was intentionally withholding that information.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Livers V. Strohwig Industries Inc. Et Al
    Docket Number: 5:22cv211
    Court: United States District Court, Kentucky Eastern
    Order Date: July 08, 2024