Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Qualification

  • Law Enforcement Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Ride-Along Policies

    Law Enforcement Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Ride-Along Policies

    Zailey Hess sued former Hammond police officer Jamie Garcia, alleging that he sexually assaulted and harassed her during a ride-along for her criminal justice class in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.

    Garcia filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Hess’ expert witness, Dan Kender.

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness

    Daniel R. Kender worked as a Hammond police officer for 28 years, including as a patrol officer, evidence technician, traffic crash investigator, accident reconstructionist, field training officer (including educating ride-along participants), law enforcement instructor, and police sergeant.

    Over that time, he participated in various law enforcement training. He holds a bachelor’s degree in computer information systems and a master’s degree in cybersecurity and digital forensics. Kender is an assistant professor of computer science, though he has worked privately in crash reconstruction since 2000—first for another business, and for himself since 2008.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Garcia asked the Court to exclude all of Kender’s prospective testimony, arguing that he (1) may not testify to a witness’ credibility, (2) isn’t needed or qualified to testify on whether Garcia’s ride-along conduct was inappropriate based on Hammond’s policies or a seatbelt’s functionality, and (3) isn’t qualified to testify on sexual grooming or the behavior of a victim of sexual assault or harassment.

    A. Opinion on the Believability of Hess’ Accusations

    Kender reviewed Hess’ recollections of their ride-alongs with Garcia and opined that her accusations appeared genuine because fabricated accounts tend to be more exaggerated, while Garcia’s recollections struck him as inconsistent.

    Garcia said that Kender lacked the requisite qualifications in psychology or human behavior to reach this opinion and added that his credibility opinion cannot help the jury.

    The latter is what prevents him from being an expert here. Qualifications aside, and those remain in doubt, an opinion witness cannot sift through the testimony of others, tell the jury whom to believe, or otherwise argue the implication of seeming inconsistencies. The jury alone performs the job of assessing the credibility of witnesses, and it needs no help. Kender acknowledged that this takes no expertise beyond the common sense of each juror.

    B. Opinions on the Propriety of Garcia’s Conduct under Hammond Police Department Ride-Along Policies and Training

    Kender’s report described the purposes and procedures of a ride-along with the Hammond Police Department. He described the ride-along program as fostering positive police-community relations and educating the public on police functions.

    Based on his prior work as a field training officer and experience leading educational ride-alongs, he opined about the training Hammond law enforcement officers receive and the objectives they acknowledge to guide their ride-alongs with members of the public.

    Jurors may have early impressions about ride-alongs, or either heard of them or even participated in one, and perhaps have early impressions about their goals for both the public and police agency; but Kender would offer something specialized to understand their dynamics, objectives, and the training that goes into making sure that police officers handle them safely. He has the credentials to speak to these issues, and his method of offering these opinions grows out of his training, his training of others, and the policies in place at the Hammond Police Department.

    Beyond this scope of testimony and the context it provides the jury, the jury truly needs no help. Nor is there anything particularly expert about anything else.

    C. Opinions on the Behavior of a Victim of Sexual Misconduct and on Sexual Grooming Behavior

    Kender sought to opine that Hess’ account of Garcia’s ride-along conduct was consistent with sexual grooming by predatory child molesters. He stated that he based this opinion on his training and experience as a police officer, his review of the record, and a 2017 article about grooming behaviors by predatory child molesters.

    Garcia argued that Kender lacked the necessary qualifications to testify about grooming behavior or a victim’s common reactions to sexual assault. He said that Kender merely read transcripts rather than interviewing or observing any witnesses, and that his opinion lacked a scientific method.

    Analysis

    Kender worked as a police officer for 28 years. His curriculum vitae reflects fairly standard training at the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy and at the Northwest Indiana Law Enforcement Training Center, and it seems over the years he developed particular focuses in crash investigation, forensics (including computer forensics), and training of officers. None of this screams out expertise in sexual grooming. That said, he testified that he worked traffic part of the time, but also worked patrol involving cases of child molesting, sexual battery, and rape. He received some training on sexual grooming at the academy, and he later served as a field training officer and evidence technician when he “handled a lot more of [these] cases then.”

    While Kender hasn’t specialized professionally in sex crimes or psychology, the Court held that he may speak to patterns of sexual grooming insofar as his training and experience take him.

    Garcia also criticized Kender’s method, except that Kender outlines specific signs or dynamics of sexual grooming (something well beyond his say-so); and he thereby provided a roadmap for his application of these and his decision-making toward an opinion, and decision-making not unlike what law enforcement officers often would make in the field.

    Aspects of grooming may be intuitive to some jurors, and jurors will need no help understanding that much of the alleged behavior would be not just unprofessional but unreasonable by a police officer to commit; but other aspects about grooming or a victim’s sometimes-less-than-intuitive reactions to sexual assault will be invariably foreign to them, so this opinion about grooming will aid in their understanding of its markers and the constitutional impropriety of such behavior during a ride-along.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part Jamie Garcia’s motion to exclude Daniel Kender’s opinions.

    Key Takeaway

    Kender offered something by way of specialized knowledge to understand the objectives and training associated specifically with ride-alongs. The jury gets to decide whether Garcia’s conduct violated the Constitution with the aid of that context, but without need of more.

    For instance, jurors understand driving safety and the importance of having two hands on a steering wheel (or not). Jurors can assess whether physical contact or sexualized conversations between an officer and minor passenger (or with a sex worker) are discriminatory rather than serve any legitimate government objective.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Hess V. Garcia
    Docket Number: 3:21cv101
    Court Name: United States District Court, Indiana Northern
    Order Date: March 13, 2026
  • Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded

    Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded

    In 2018, Rock Fuel Media pitched its concept for a sports-gaming platform called “VSports Live” to Resorts World Las Vegas LLC during the development stage of Resorts World’s casino and resort on the Las Vegas Strip. Resorts World did not end up contracting with Rock Fuel, and Rock Fuel never built the VSports Live platform. When Resorts World opened its doors several years later, it instead partnered with third parties to create two apps from which visitors could engage in sports betting, connect to the casino’s loyalty program, make dining reservations, engage in cashless gambling, and more.

    Rock Fuel, believing that Resorts World cribbed its app ideas from the 2018 presentation, alleged trade-secret misappropriation, breach of the nondisclosure agreement (NDA) the parties signed before the 2018 presentation, and unjust enrichment.

    Resorts World filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Rock Fuel’s purported expert witness, James Martin.

    Intellectual Property Expert Witness

    James Patrick Martin has more than 25 years of experience representing high-tech companies and their employees in intellectual property matters and technology-based transactions.

    He earned his Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, from the University of Michigan Law School.

    Discover more cases with James Martin as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Martin reviewed Rock Fuel’s presentation materials concerning its app concept and “extracted” an eight-element set of features that Rock Fuel now presents as its trade secret. He opined that the combination of features he identified is protectable and was misappropriated by Resorts World.

    Resorts World challenged Martin’s qualifications and accused him of conjuring up this trade secret only after examining Resorts World’s app and highlighting elements that overlap while ignoring those that don’t.

    It also moved to exclude Martin’s misappropriation opinion because it isn’t based on any specialized knowledge that would be helpful to a jury.

    Rock Fuel relied on Martin’s opinion to contend that the similarities between Rock Fuel’s eight elements and Resorts World’s apps at launch are sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a jury could conclude that Resorts World used Rock Fuel’s presentation materials to create its mobile products.

    However, Rock Fuel has not established that he has specialized expertise or knowledge in app development, casino or hotel management software, sports gaming software, or any other field that would give him the specialized knowledge to compare app functionalities. He merely downloaded the Resorts World apps, compared what he saw to the 2018 presentation materials, and concluded that they have some overlap.

    Even if Martin’s qualifications sufficed, his opinions are excludable because they do not rely on any specialized knowledge or expertise. He merely reviewed Resorts World’s products, compared them to the combination of elements he identified as Rock Fuel’s trade secret, and concluded that Resorts World “has a system that looks a lot like” Rock Fuel’s concept.

    As a result, the Court held that Martin’s opinion on whether Resorts World misappropriated Rock Fuel’s trade secret is not admissible.

    Held

    The Court granted in part Resorts World’s motion to exclude James Martin’s expert testimony.

    Key Takeaway

    While experts are generally allowed to opine on whether a product has
    been misappropriated, Martin lacks specialized experience that would permit him to glean anything more than a layperson could.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Resorts World Las Vegas LLC V. Rock Fuel Media, Inc.
    Docket Number: 2:21cv2218
    Court Name: United States District Court, Nevada
    Order Date: March 12, 2026
  • Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded

    Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded

    The Plaintiffs in this putative national class action are insureds who filed “total loss” claims for the actual cash value (“ACV”) of their totaled vehicles under their automobile insurance policies sold by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company or State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (collectively, “Defendants” or “State Farm”). Plaintiffs challenged State Farm’s application of a “typical-negotiation adjustment” (“TNA”) in the calculation of the ACV of Plaintiffs’ vehicles, which reduced Plaintiffs’ total loss payments based on the average difference between the list price and a lower price that a dealer would theoretically accept.

    Alleging that this methodology resulted in undervalued payments, Plaintiffs brought various claims, including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”) and various other state consumer protection statutes.

    Defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Kirk Felix, Plaintiffs’ expert on used car pricing trends.

    Automotive Industry Expert Witness

    Kirk Felix spent the first 13 years of his career managing the service and parts departments of Honda, Acura, and Toyota dealerships; from 1999 until his 2022 retirement, Felix served as a moderator and consultant at NCM Associates, Inc., where he facilitated meetings—called 20 Groups—for cohorts of non-competing dealerships to “discuss industry trends and best practices for operating efficient, profitable dealerships.”

    Over the course of those two decades, those discussions included over 300 dealerships across 45 states, including Chevrolet, Chrysler, Ford, Nissan, and Honda dealers, two fixed operations director groups, and an Independent Auto Auction group.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Felix’s Qualifications

    State Farm first argued that Felix is unqualified to “opine on the pricing and selling of used vehicles, including topics like dealerships’ pricing strategies, consumers’ negotiating behavior, and the Autosource methodology at issue in this case.”

    Felix has never sold a used car, and he admitted that he has never been involved in the used car business. Though Felix occasionally gave information about a car’s reconditioning costs to those individuals at dealerships in charge of used car pricing (during his work from 1986 to 1999), he has never been involved in pricing used vehicles for sale, nor has he managed those who do.

    Here, Felix’s experience comes from the conversations he facilitated at NCM. Yet Felix’s experience with NCM involved meetings only three times a year. Felix’s involvement included putting together the agenda for the meeting after consulting with the group’s executive committee, and then running the meetings alongside the chairman, but he did not take notes at the meetings. It is hard to square this experience with the scope of Plaintiffs’ proposed testimony, which seeks to authoritatively describe the process for pricing and selling used automobiles.

    Basically, Felix admitted to not knowing the number of car dealerships in any state, what percentage of used car dealerships in any state market themselves as no haggle dealerships, what percentage of dealerships in any state will negotiate on the price of a used car, or how many car dealerships have eliminated negotiation.

    Felix never conducted a survey of dealers regarding their pricing practices ahead of this litigation, though he says a survey probably happened during his time at NCM, even if he cannot recall when or what the results were.

    Upon a review of the full record, the Court agreed that Felix has not demonstrated the requisite qualifications.

    B. Reliability of Felix’s Testimony

    Here, Felix has freely admitted that his methodology for opining on the used car pricing and sales market consists of reflecting upon memories of his experiences with NCM.

    Yet NCM’s moderation topics were not even specific to used cars. Rather, the business model involved gathering approximately 20 dealers representing the same manufacturer (i.e. Toyota), compiling 5-7-page financial statements from each of them, and then consolidating the information into a 30-plus page financial comparison document to then discuss in a meeting.

    Even if used cars were discussed at every meeting as a “critical part” of the car business, as Felix testifies, general reference to thrice-annual meetings does not demonstrate the “soundness and care” expected of experts on the facts of the case at hand.

    Felix’s planned testimony is that “vehicles are priced to market and used car dealers do not deviate down from the advertised cash price with limited exceptions.” In depositions, he has estimated that this is the case around 90 percent of the time. This, however, is not a view he can back up by data but rather, it is a product of the information he heard “over 23 years with NCM clients.”

    While it is true, as Plaintiffs contended, that Felix need not commission a study himself to testify to how often vehicles are sold for less than listed price, Felix must still explain how he reaches his conclusions.

    The same goes for Felix’s assertion that Autosource and used car dealers use the same methods to assess the value of used automobiles other than State Farm’s use of the TNA.  The fact that these inputs share labels, however, does not necessarily equate to the inputs themselves  mirroring one another. 

    With an eye for sufficiency and application of methodology, the Court found that Felix’s testimony misses the mark.

    Held

    The Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Kirk Felix.

    Key Takeaway

    Plaintiffs have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Felix’s testimony is “based on sufficient facts or data” and “the product of reliable principles and methods.” In other words, the Court found that Felix’s application of his methodology to the circumstances of the case have not met the Rule 702 threshold, in accordance with the 2023 amendments.

    Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

    Appraisal Expert’s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Williams V. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
    Docket Number: 1:22cv1422
    Court Name: United States District Court, Illinois Northern
    Order Date: March 10, 2026
  • Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Clear Warnings

    Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Clear Warnings

    This lawsuit arises out of the death of Timothy L. Stringer (“Stringer”) resulting from a May 15, 2021, explosion on an offshore oil and gas production platform owned by Fieldwood Energy LLC (“Fieldwood”).

     At the time of the accident, Stringer was working on the platform and, along with another employee, was performing a pressure integrity test on a well. To perform this test, Stringer was provided with a Crystal XP2i Digital Test Gauge (“Crystal Gauge”) to monitor the internal pressure on the pipe casing. Ametek, Inc. is the manufacturer of the Crystal Gauge, and Robin Instrument & Specialty, LLC (“Robin”) distributed it to Stringer’s employer. 

    Stringer’s spouse and children alleged that Ametek and Robin failed to warn users like Stringer of the foreseeable misuse that the Crystal Gauge could be set to read in either PSI or Bar and of the dangers associated with misinterpreting or mixing up the units of pressure.

    Ametek, joined by Robin, argued that Plaintiffs’ expert, Glenn Gleason (“Gleason”), is unqualified and that his report and testimony are speculative and unreliable.

    Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness

    Glenn H. Gleason is a licensed Professional Engineer with a Ph.D., Master of Science, and Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering. During his academic career, Gleason claims that he became proficient with different types of physical mechanisms and instruments commonly used to measure pressure. 

    Gleason also served as a consultant at an engineering firm where he conducted “mechanical system and equipment failure analysis” and tested mechanical relief valves, pressure vessels, and the use of pneumatic and hydraulic equipment requiring the monitoring of pressure gauges.

    Want to know more about the challenges Glenn Gleason has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    The Court found that Gleason is qualified to serve as an expert in this matter due to his educational and professional experience. Any doubts as to Gleason’s qualifications are suitable for cross-examination, but these doubts do not warrant exclusion.

    The Court next turned to Gleason’s methodology in reaching his proffered opinion. In his report, Gleason opined that Ametek could and should have: (i) presented clear warnings accompanying pressure units so consumers can disable unused unit systems on the gauges; and (ii) limited available unit systems through factory default settings on gauges that would be used in industries that only use PSI.

    Gleason based his opinion on investigations of the incident conducted by other engineering firms, the market in which the Crystal Gauge was sold (where PSI was the sole unit of measure), deposition testimony stating that Ametek disabled all other units besides Bar in the Chinese market, the Crystal Gauge’s operation manual, and a physical inspection of the Crystal Gauge itself. All told, these factual bases are sufficient for this Court to find that Gleason’s report is not so speculative as to warrant exclusion.

    Doubts about an expert’s qualifications or the factual basis for their testimony generally concerns the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. As a result, doubts regarding Gleason’s qualifications or the factual basis for his opinions are best left to a jury, not this Court. 

    Held

    The Court denied Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Glenn Gleason.

    Key Takeaway

    An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Stringer V. Robin Instrument & Specialty, LLC
    Docket Number: 6:23cv415
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division
    Order Date: February 20, 2026
  • Psychology Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Voluntary Adult Sex-Work Subculture

    Psychology Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Voluntary Adult Sex-Work Subculture

    Defendants Brandon Washington and Maria Georgianna Palm are charged with various crimes arising out of their scheme to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, and maintain vulnerable women, and to perform commercial sex acts for their financial benefit via threats of force, fraud, and coercion.

    The United States of America filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Defendant Brandon Washington’s expert, Dr. Justin J. Lehmiller.

    The Government asked the Court to exclude the testimony of Lehmiller as an expert for several reasons: First, he is not qualified to educate the jury on the topic of sex trafficking, or commercial sex work. Second, he failed to comply with Rule 16(b)(1)(C)(iii) by failing to identify the opinions he will offer. Third, his proposed testimony will attempt to define the law, or it is irrelevant and not likely to assist the jury in deciding the facts in this case. And fourth, it violated Rule 403 because his proposed testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger it would confuse and mislead the jury.

    Psychology Expert Witness

    Dr. Justin J. Lehmiller is a social psychologist, author, and senior research fellow at the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University. Lehmiller received his Ph.D. in Social Psychology from Purdue University. He has authored books such as Tell Me What You Want: The Science of Sexual Desire and How It Can Help You Improve Your Sex Life and The Psychology of Human Sexuality (third edition published in 2023). The Psychology of Human Sexuality is a textbook that is used in college classrooms around the world. He has also published extensively in peer-reviewed journals on sexual behavior, marginalized and stigmatized relationships, casual sex, and consensual non-monogamy.

    Want to know more about the challenges Justin Lehmiller has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    While Lehmiller’s disclosure suffered from some deficiencies, primarily the lack of specific opinions, the Court did not find them so limiting as to warrant exclusion. The fact remains that he did identify the subject-matter topics he proposed to testify about. In essence, he provided notice of his expert opinions in summary fashion via general categorizations.

    Next, the Government suggested that Lehmiller’s testimony will impermissibly attempt to define the law and usurp the role of the Court by defining coercion or sex trafficking concepts. The Court will not tolerate this practice from any expert or the Government’s expert. Lehmiller will be permitted to provide testimony about the voluntary adult sex-worker subculture. He will not be permitted to define legal terms or attempt to tell the jury what the law is. Nor will he be allowed to opine on what he believes constitutes illegal coercion, or define what situations constitute “voluntary” sex work from “exploitation” or “trafficking” or attempt to redefine statutory terms.

    It appeared to the Court that Lehmiller’s expert disclosure was timely, and the Government has been provided with adequate notice and is not claiming surprise. Moreover, there are no allegations that the defense seeks to introduce undisclosed areas of his testimony.

    Moreover, the Government is free to attack Lehmiller’s qualifications or the lack thereof. It will be up to the jury to determine how much weight should be accorded to his opinions, but the remedy of outright exclusion is not warranted.

    Finally, the Court did not find that Rule 403 would be violated by allowing this testimony. Providing testimony to provide background, contextual testimony to assist the jury in understanding subject matter outside common experience is relevant and not prejudicial to justify exclusion.

    Held

    The Court denied the Government’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Justin Lehmiller.

    Key Takeaway

    While Lehmiller’s background may be deficient in having exhaustive knowledge of the sex trafficking industry, that is not the standard for Rule 702 admissibility. The Court finds that while not overwhelming, when considering the totality of his education, research and training, Lehmiller’s proposed testimony meets the thresholds of relevance and reliability.

    Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

    Law Enforcement Expert Allowed to Opine on the Dynamics of Consensual Adult Sex Work

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: United States V. Washington
    Docket Number: 2:23cr58
    Court Name: United States District Court, Washington Western
    Order Date: February 02, 2026
  • Education Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Best Practices for Teaching ESL Students

    Education Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Best Practices for Teaching ESL Students

    This is a religious discrimination case arising from Plaintiff Sudoos Hamood’s termination from Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (“ACCESS”).

    Ms. Hamood, Plaintiff, began working with ACCESS, Defendant, in 2017. In 2021, Ms. Hamood took on a new role at ACCESS and began working as an English teacher during the COVID-19 pandemic. Shortly thereafter, on October 8, 2021, Ms. Hamood’s employment with ACCESS was terminated due to conflict over ACCESS’s policy which required English teachers to show their faces while teaching virtually.

    ACCESS has submitted the expert opinion of Ms. Anita Linder Caref in support of the proposition that viewing a teacher’s face is a best practice in English language instruction.

    Plaintiff argued that Caref is not sufficiently qualified to offer expert testimony because she lacked the requisite experience and knowledge required under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Plaintiff asserted that Caref has never been certified as an ESL specialist, has not conducted peer-reviewed research on ESL methodology, and has never before served as an expert witness.

    Education Expert Witness

    Ms. Anita Linder Caref has a master’s degree in English/Language and Literacy from The City College of the City University of New York and extensive experience teaching English.

    She has written curricula for every level of Adult Basic Education (ABE) and High School Equivalency (HSE) preparation classes at the City Colleges of Chicago; each curriculum helps students improve their reading and writing skills as they learn social studies and science.

    Caref earned a B.S. in Elementary Education with majors in Reading Certification and Bilingual Certification, as well as a master’s degree in English/Language and Literacy.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    The Court concluded that Caref is qualified to serve as an expert witness. Caref had an extensive, 45-year career as an ESL instructor, which provided her with the experience and specialize knowledge necessary to testify about the best practices for teaching ESL students. She has taught students from more than 25 countries — including several Arab countries such as Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria — and she has also taught in remote-learning environments. Her practical experience is complemented by educational credentials that further support her qualification to testify as an expert.

    Plaintiff’s challenges to Caref’s experience and methodology can be addressed on cross-examination. At this moment, however, the Court found that her opinions are the product of reliable principles and methods and are based on her education and professional training, decades of experience teaching ESL students, designing curricula, and supervising other ESL instructors.

    The Court is not convinced that her testimony will be duplicative. Although she reaches the same conclusion as Defendant’s other expert, she does so through a different approach. Her testimony could very well assist the jury by providing an educator’s perspective, rather than the more academic or scientific approach.

    The Court is persuaded by Defendant’s argument that the issues raised by Plaintiff relates more to credibility instead of qualification. What Plaintiff challenges goes to the weight of Caref’s testimony on the stand, not her ability to satisfy the threshold requirements for expert status.

    Held

    The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Anita Linder Caref’s testimony and concluded that she is qualified to serve as an expert witness.

    Key Takeaway

    Caref possesses sufficient educational credentials, and her opinions are the product of reliable principles and methods grounded in her education, professional training, and decades of experience teaching ESL students, designing curricula, and supervising other instructors.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Hamood V. Arab Community Center For Economic And Social Services
    Docket Number: 2:23cv10270
    Court Name: United States District Court, Michigan Eastern
    Order Date: January 20, 2026
  • Compliance Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Amazon Policy

    Compliance Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Amazon Policy

    ZAGG initiated this action against DVG, TX Trading Inc. (“TX Trading”), and Menachem Mendel Ichilevici (“Ichilevici”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alter egos collectively doing business as Amazon Seller “Mac N’ Cheese,” violated Sections 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a), by infringing on ZAGG’s trademarks and falsely advertising ZAGG products.

    Plaintiff, ZAGG, Inc., filed a Daubert motion to exclude the report and testimony of DVG’s Amazon policy expert, Rachel Johnson Greer.

    Compliance Expert Witness

    Rachel Johnson Greer worked as a Program Manager at Amazon for five years, overseeing various elements of Amazon’s compliance programs. She has has served as an Amazon compliance consultant since 2015. Greer published a book on Amazon product safety. She has appeared as an “Amazon Product Compliance” speaker at various events from 2016 to 2022.

    Greer received a Master of Business Administration degree from Seattle University.

    Discover more cases with Rachel Johnson Greer as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    I. Qualifications

    ZAGG claimed that Greer is “an unqualified and unreliable witness as to Amazon’s current processes and policies (or any policies after she left in 2017).”

    However, Greer’s experience both as a manager at Amazon and as a consultant to Amazon sellers qualifies her as an expert in the field of “Amazon policy compliance.”

    Despite Greer’s demonstrated experience in the Amazon marketplace, ZAGG attacked her qualifications in four ways. First, ZAGG claimed that none of Greer’s roles at Amazon “involved any of the issues or policies at issue in this case.” But that’s not entirely true. Greer “investigated sellers and vendors for safety and intellectual property infringement,” “managed quality & compliance for Amazon’s own brands,” and “managed the legal compliance of all global imports.”

    Second, ZAGG contended that Greer isn’t qualified because she hasn’t worked at Amazon since 2017 and thus (ZAGG says) isn’t familiar with Amazon’s “current processes and policies.” But ZAGG hasn’t cited any authority for the proposition that an expert must be currently (or even recently) employed by a company whose policies he or she intends to outline.

    Third, ZAGG insisted that “only Amazon itself can testify as to its practices and procedures.” However, courts routinely allow experts who are unaffiliated with a company to testify about that company’s policies or practices if those experts are otherwise qualified to do so. To the extent ZAGG thinks that Amazon would be a better witness, it hasn’t identified any authority that requires the Court to exclude an expert’s testimony simply because a better witness might have been found.

    Finally, ZAGG claimed that Greer is impermissibly trying to “testify on behalf of Amazon.” The Greer Report made it clear that Greer is offering her perspective on Amazon’s policies and practices as an expert who’s navigated the Amazon marketplace for years.

    II. Reliability

    Because Greer is a non-scientific expert testifying about her experience, the relevant question is “how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.”

    Greer has shown that her opinions about Amazon’s policies and practices are based, in part, on her experience “providing compliance guidance to Amazon sellers regarding Product Policy, Fulfilment by Amazon (‘FBA’) compliance, Amazon’s intellectual property policies, and other Seller Performance issues,” and “providing advisory services on meeting Amazon and regulatory product compliance requirements for consumer goods.”

    Her “opinions in this case are based on her experience working at Amazon and in her Amazon consulting business, Amazon policy documents, publicly available listings of ZAGG products on Amazon.com, and her review of certain documents provided to her by DVG.” That’s more than sufficient for the Court to find her report and testimony reliable under Rule 702.

    Since Greer’s proposed testimony is based on her personal experience working with Amazon’s quality control policies over many years, the Court denied the second aspect of ZAGG’s motion.

    III. Helpfulness

    ZAGG argued that the Greer Report is not helpful because it “contains exclusively fact testimony and is completely devoid of any opinions that go beyond the understanding of an average layperson.”

    However, DVG argued that Greer does much more than just recite Amazon policies and procedures. In saying so, DVG identifies several of Greer’s opinions that (it believes) will help the trier of fact, including:

    • Amazon public-facing policies “are often contradictory or outdated” because “Amazon’s process for changing and updating policies, guidelines and other seller documents on the Amazon Marketplace is a multi-step process that requires internal tickets and up to six approvals.”
    • “Based on her experience at Amazon and in providing consulting services to Amazon sellers, it has always been understood that a “new” item is simply one that is brand-new and unused, free of blemishes, smudges or dirt, and in the original packaging.”

    The Court agreed with DVG that Greer’s report and testimony go well beyond a mere recitation of Amazon’s policies and that her expert analysis of Amazon’s policies and practices would assist the trier of fact. The Court thus denied this third aspect of ZAGG’s motion.

    IV. Opinions & Hearsay

    First, ZAGG said that “it is entirely unclear what ‘opinions’ are being offered by Greer.” ZAGG claimed that the Greer Report is “a hodgepodge of speculative factual assertions made by Greer masquerading as ‘opinions.’”

    However, in making this argument, ZAGG identified several of Greer’s specific opinions—thus belying its claim that it has no way of knowing which opinions Greer plans to offer. (“Greer testified that she is offering only two opinions. First, she testified that: ‘Accordingly, it is my opinion that ZAGG’s conclusion that defendants cannot list ZAGG products as being in new condition is based on an incorrect interpretation of Amazon’s policies that is not used by Amazon in practice.’ Second, she testified that: ‘it is my opinion that defendants’ stickering of ZAGG products comports with Amazon’s policy, as does the marking over the barcode on the lower left of the packaging above.’”)

    Second, ZAGG believed that Greer’s opinions are merely “out-of-court assertions about Amazon’s policies and practices, offered for their truth.”

    The Court held that Greer’s testimony isn’t a mere recounting of the out-of-court statements of others—it’s expert analysis about the industry’s business practices gleaned from her years of experience as an Amazon employee and consultant.

    Held

    The Court denied ZAGG’s motion to exclude the report of DVG’s expert, Rachel Johnson Greer.

    Key Takeaway

    Knowledge of an industry’s business practices is gleaned from years of working within the industry and with its professionals. It is not a recounting of out of court statements of others.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Zagg Inc. V. TX Trading, Inc.
    Docket Number: 1:23cv20304
    Court Name: United States District Court, Florida Southern
    Order Date: December 16, 2025
  • Infectious Disease Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Masking and Testing

    Infectious Disease Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Masking and Testing

    Eight former Redmond firefighters sued the City of Redmond (“City”) after being terminated for refusing COVID-19 vaccinations on religious grounds. They argued the City should have let them continue working with masking and testing rather than requiring vaccination.

    Plaintiffs filed a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of the City’s expert, Dr. John Lynch.

    Infectious Disease Expert Witness

    Dr. John B. Lynch is a board-certified physician in infectious disease, Professor of Medicine at the University of Washington, and Associate Medical Director of Harborview Medical Center.

    Moreover, he led UW Medicine’s COVID-19 Emergency Operations Center from February 2020 through December 2023, overseeing PPE and testing policies, and has authored 82 peer-reviewed publications, including 15 on COVID-19.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Plaintiffs challenged Lynch’s qualifications, arguing that he lacks expertise in masking and testing, that his opinions were irrelevant because Defendant allegedly lacked an undue hardship defense, and that his method is unreliable because he did not conduct original research. The Court disagreed.

    Basically, medical experts commonly base their opinions on clinical experience, peer-reviewed literature, and public health guidance—precisely the materials Lynch relied on here.

    Moreover, Lynch’s opinions are grounded in decades of clinical experience, extensive review of scientific literature, and his direct involvement in the public health response to COVID-19.

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert Dr. John Lynch.

    Key Takeaway

    The Ninth Circuit has explained that expert testimony is reliable if the knowledge underlying it has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline. If Plaintiffs wish to challenge what Lynch failed to consider or address, such critiques go to weight and credibility—subjects for cross-examination—not admissibility.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Carlson V. City Of Redmond
    Docket Number: 2:22cv1739
    Court Name: United States District Court, Washington Western
    Order Date: December 05, 2025
  • Anesthesiology Expert’s Testimony on the Value of Promotion Admitted

    Anesthesiology Expert’s Testimony on the Value of Promotion Admitted

    Plaintiff, Dr. Sheldon Goldstein, a former physician in the Department of Anesthesiology quit his employment when in 2021, he did not receive a
    promotion to Professor on the Clinical Educator Track, the same promotion he did not attain the year prior.

    Goldstein alleged that he was subjected to discrimination and harassment because of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). He asserted these claims against Montefiore Medical Center, and Dr. Mattias Eikermann. Montefiore hired Plaintiff on September 30, 2013 as a full-time physician and Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine (“Einstein”) while Defendant Eikermann served as the Chairman of Anesthesiology at Montefiore and Plaintiff’s supervisor.

    Plaintiff offered Dr. Edward A. Ochroch as a medical school promotions expert. Defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Ochroch, who opines on Plaintiff’s qualifications for promotion, the propriety of Plaintiff’s exclusion from the promotion process, and the relative value of a promotion to clinical professor.

    Anesthesiology Expert Witness

    Dr. Edward Andrew Ochroch, M.D. is a board-certified anesthesiologist and has worked exclusively as a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in the Department of Anesthesiology for the past nineteen years. In that time, Ochroch has served as chair of the Departmental Committee on Appointments and Promotions, overseeing and serving on “numerous committees on appointments and promotions.”

    Want to know more about the challenges Edward Ochroch has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    I. Background and Opinion of Ochroch

    Ochroch opined that: (1) “Plaintiff met all the requirements set forth on the Clinical Educator Checklist for promotion to Clinical Professor in 2021”; (2) Plaintiff “should have been recommended by the Departmental Committee on Appointments and Promotions if Eikermann had not interfered”; (3) “Eikermann’s interference” in the promotion process “was a violation of the Suggested Guidelines for Promotion to Senior Rank”; and (4) given the value of promotion, “by preventing [Plaintiff] from being considered for promotion . . .Eikermann diminished [Plaintiff’s] reputation, limited his employment opportunities, excluded him from consideration for administrative positions, and precluded him from receiving a significant annual increase in wages.” 

    II. Ochroch’s Qualifications

    Defendants argued that Ochroch is unqualified to serve as an expert witness because “being an anesthesiologist does not make him an expert in the promotion process at Montefiore”; that his experience with the academic promotion process is limited to his employment at the University of Pennsylvania; and that “the promotion process at the University of Pennsylvania [is not] an area of expertise.”

    The Court found that Ochroch’s experience as a member and chair of the University of Pennsylvania’s committee on appointments and promotion is reasonably closely related to the promotion process at Einstein.

    III. Reliability of Ochroch’s Opinions

    A. Assessment of Goldstein’s Qualifications for Promotion

    As to Ochroch’s opinion that Goldstein met Einstein’s requirements for a promotion to Clinical Professor in 2021, Defendants noted that, in assessing Plaintiff’s qualifications, Ochroch relied exclusively on his experience, the Clinical Educator Checklist published by Einstein, and Plaintiff’s CV and teaching portfolio. Defendants contended that this opinion is unreliable because Ochroch provided no analysis, did not ground the conclusion in facts or a reliable methodology, and impermissibly substituted his own views for those of the promotion committee.

    In light of Ochroch’s thirty years of experience, the Court found Ochroch’s opinion that Goldstein had met Einstein’s qualifications for promotion reliable.

    B. Assessment of Eikermann’s Role

    As to Ochroch’s opinion that Eikermann “contaminated the entire process” in deciding Plaintiff was not eligible for promotion in 2021, Defendants suggested that Plaintiff improperly sought to use Ochroch to present the factual narrative from Plaintiff’s perspective. 

    Here, Ochroch offered no support beyond his own speculation that Eikermann’s decision to not consider Plaintiff for promotion in 2021 reflected a purposeful effort to exclude Plaintiff.

    The Court found Ochroch’s opinion on Eikermann’s role in the failure to promote Plaintiff in 2021 unreliable.

    C. Assessment of the Value of a Promotion and Effects of Being Denied a Promotion

    As to Ochroch’s opinions on the value of a promotion to Clinical Professor and the negative consequences of not being promoted, Defendants argued that Ochroch lacked the necessary knowledge and experience to testify on these topics.

    However, Ochroch provided data on the benefits associated with a promotion to Clinical Professor: he explained that promotion to that level at the University of Pennsylvania comes with an “added six percent of salary or approximately $25,000” in addition to increased retirement benefits; and he noted that “other institutions pay as much as $30,000 annually for a promotion to Clinical Professor.”

    Ochroch also described the less easily quantified professional ramifications of promotion to Clinical Professor: more job opportunities, eligibility for “internal and external administrative positions” such as department chair, and additional opportunities to lecture and publish.

    And Ochroch discussed the “negative consequences of not being promoted,” stating a physician who fails to be promoted within ten years is presumed “inferior or incompetent or both”; Ochroch concluded that because Plaintiff was not promoted to Clinical Professor, his reputation suffered, his employment opportunities were limited, he was ineligible for administrative positions, and he did not receive significant annual wage increases. 

    The Court found Ochroch’s opinions on the value of promotion to the rank of Clinical Professor and the professional harm Plaintiff suffered due to being denied the promotion reliable.

    IV. Relevance of Ochroch’s Opinions

    With respect to Ochroch’s opinions on Goldstein’s qualifications for promotion, Defendants argued that Plaintiff has failed to show that these opinions are based on the witness’ expertise as opposed to matters that the factfinders could understand without an expert’s help.

    Ochroch recited Plaintiff’s credentials and opined that, based on Einstein’s promotion rubric, Plaintiff was qualified for promotion.

    Defendants’ argument that the factfinders could reach the same conclusion or not on their own therefore has some force. However, Plaintiff’s explanation that the factfinders would require assistance to understand “the world of academic medicine promotions” was also persuasive. The Court concluded that the factfinders would benefit from an explanation of how Goldstein’s professional accomplishments fit within Einstein’s promotion rubric and therefore that Ochroch’s opinions on this subject are relevant and admissible. 

    V. Ochroch’s Opinions and Rule 403

    The Court found that Rule 403 provided an additional basis for finding Ochroch’s opinions on Eikermann’s motivation for and role in the failure to promote Plaintiff in 2021 to be inadmissible to the extent that they are unreliable. 

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Edward A. Ochroch.

    Key Takeaway:

    Defendants were correct that a party may not present an expert to make “simple inferences drawn from uncomplicated facts,” which do not help the jury and serve only to buttress Plaintiff’s case.

    Ochroch, in opining on Eikermann’s role in Einstein’s decision not to consider Plaintiff for promotion, performed just that impermissible function. Jurors can rely on the additional industry context provided by Ochroch to reach their own conclusions about whether Eikermann contaminated the promotion process. Additionally, an expert may not opine on “motivation or intent” without “dispositive support.” 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Goldstein V. Montefiore Medical Center Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:22cv6723
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    Order Date: September 25, 2025
  • Product Development Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine that the Fan is Not Defective

    Product Development Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine that the Fan is Not Defective

    Allstate insured L&J Home Improvements, LLC (“L&J”), which was owned and operated by Julie and Luis Hernandez. In or around 2003, L&J purchased a two-story, wood frame residence built in 1888 that is located at 231 N. Walnut St. in Colorado Springs, Colorado (the “residence”). After the purchase, L&J performed a remodel on the residence in or around 2006. The remodel included an updated electrical system and fixtures. 

    As part of the remodel, an electrical contractor installed three identical bathroom exhaust/ventilation fan/lights (“fan units”). One fan unit was installed in the upper-level half bath, one fan unit was installed in the lower-level bathroom, and one fan unit was installed in the upper-level bathroom. 

    A resident, who shared the upper-level bathroom where the fan was located, said that the fan was often left on after bathroom use and the fan had begun to make a noise when turned on several weeks before the incident.

    A fire occurred in the residence the evening of February 25, 2021 (the “incident”). The Colorado Springs Fire Department (the “CSFD”) conducted an investigation. The CSFD considered the fan as an ignition source.

    Defendant Broan-Nutone manufactured and sold the fan. When the fan was manufactured in the fall of 2005, Broan-Nutone considered itself subject to the following certification requirements created by Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”).

    Allstate brought claims against Broan-Nutone for strict product liability, negligence, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness.

    On February 9, 2024, Broan-Nutone provided Allstate with its expert disclosures. It listed David Farchione as a non-retained expert who did not need to provide an expert report. Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Farchione.

    Product Development Expert Witness

    David Farchione has a bachelor’s in engineering from the Milwaukee School of Engineering, where he graduated and entered the workforce in 1996 working for UL in relation to UL product certifications.

    Farchione gained experience in product development, design, manufacture, and failure analysis during his four years working for UL and approximately fifteen years working for Broan. During his career, he has worked in engineering and consulting regarding certifications obtained from UL, which includes certifications specific to exhaust fans, like the Model Fan.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding David Farchione’s expert testimony.

    Discussion by the Court

    Qualification

    Allstate challenged Farchione’s qualifications to provide an expert opinion that the fan was not defective. Allstate argued that Farchione’s only basis for opining that the fan is not defective is that it is UL certified and that it was designed, built, and evaluated by engineers.

    Broan-Nutone did not assert that Farchione was involved in the design, manufacturing, or evaluation of the fan, either through Farchione’s work at UL or his work at Broan-Nutone.

    Allstate did not contest Farchione’s qualifications to testify about the UL certification process and how it works, given his experience working at UL and his experience at Broan-Nutone with UL product certification. However, the issue is whether Farchione’s experience with UL certifications allows him to express opinions, drawn only from the UL certification process, that the fan was not defective. The Court found that for Farchione to testify that the fan at issue in this case was not defective would go beyond the “reasonable confines of his subject area.” 

    Neither Broan-Nutone in its response, or Farchione in his deposition, has explained why Farchione’s UL knowledge allowed him to opine that the fan at issue in this case had no defect. For instance, Farchione did not state that the UL documentation for the fan involved testing for design defects or manufacturing defects. 

    The Court found that Broan-Nutone has not explained why Farchione is qualified, solely based on his knowledge of the UL certification process, to bridge the gap between a product being “UL certified” and the product being “not defective” without any examination or testing of the fan at issue.

    Methodology

    Allstate also argued that Farchione’s opinion that the fan was not defective should be excluded because he lacked a reliable methodology for his conclusion.

    As the Court has already noted, Farchione did not conduct any testing or evaluation of the fan. As a result, he applied no testing methodology in opining that the fan is not defective. Moreover, neither Farchione nor Defendant identified any methodology that he applied in concluding that, because the fan was UL certified and was designed by engineers, it is not defective.

    Allstate challenged the basis for Farchione’s opinion that the fan was “fit for sale,” a conclusion which Farchione reached based on the fact that “[t]here’s been ultimately millions of these [fans] sold over the years. And there’s not any huge issues with these particular problems — or these particular products.”  When Allstate asked Farchione to provide more specific figures regarding the number of problems with this model of fan, he stated that “I don’t know how many exactly, but it’s, you know, tens.”

    As a result, the Court found that Farchione’s testimony about sales data is not admissible. First, Broan-Nutone failed to establish that data given to Farchione by his (or the Defendant’s) attorneys constitutes the kind of data that would reasonably be relied upon by experts on product defects. Second, Farchione did not identify any other source of data he relied upon. Thus, Farchione’s opinion that the fan is fit for sale, insofar as that opinion relied on sales data, lacked a factual basis. 

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of David Farchione.

    Key Takeaway:

    Farchione was not allowed to testify that the fan was not defective based on the fan’s UL certification or because sales data showed that there were few complaints about the fan.

    The Court is not required to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert and may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Allstate Indemnity Company V. Broan-Nutone, LLC
    Docket Number: 1:23cv743
    Court Name: United States District Court, Colorado
    Order Date: October 09, 2025