- SEC v. Revelation Capital Mgmt., Ltd – United States District Court – Southern District of New York – July 8th, 2016 – This case involves a short sale of securities. The plaintiff (SEC) claims that the defendant (Revelation) violated Rule 105 of Regulation M which prohibits a person from purchasing securities after making a short sale prior to the pricing of the securities in a firm commitment offering. Both parties hired securities expert witnesses (Guy Erb for SEC and Dennis Dumas for Revelation) to assist in proving their case and both filed motions to exclude the testimony of these witnesses. Revelation argued that Erb was not qualified, his testimony was not reliable, and his testimony was unfairly prejudicial. The SEC argued that Dumas’s testimony was not relevant. The court denied Revelation’s motion and granted SEC’s motion.
- Epic Sys. Corp. v. Attachmate Corp – United States District Court – Western District of Wisconsin – July 8th, 2016 – This case involves the unauthorized use of software. The plaintiff (Epic) filed suit against defendant (Attachment) for aiding in unauthorized use of certain parts of their software. Attachment has filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Richard Bero (business valuation expert witness), stating that Bero’s testimony is irrelevant, not grounded in credible evidence, and come to impermissible legal conclusions. The court opined that Bero’s expert testimony is admissible.
- Jamison et al v. Depositors Insurance Company – United States District Court – District of Nebraska – July 5th, 2016 – This is an insurance coverage dispute. The plaintiffs (Jamisons) are seeking declaratory relief to determine their rights under an insurance policy issued by the defendant (Depositors). Depositors has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Steve Hudson (industrial hygienist & mold expert witness) arguing that the testimony is not relevant or reliable. First, they claim that Hudson’s opinion that he cannot know when mold growth began would not assist the trier of fact. Second, they state that Hudson did not disclose reliable principles or methods to back up his opinions. The judge disagreed, stating that Depositors misunderstood Hudson’s opinions regarding the mold growth and that he can rely on personal experience and a review of the literature to form his opinions. Thus, the court denied Depositor’s motion to exclude Hudson’s testimony.
Circuit court excluded witness testimony of four experts related to injuries caused to a baby during birth. Court of Appeals reversed the opinion and remanded for further proceedings.
Court reverses lower court opinion (affirmed by the Court of Appeals) allowing the causation expert witness testimony of Dr. Jerrold Abraham. Spaca argued that expert’s cumulative exposure theory dis not fit the legal standard of causation. The Supreme Court agreed.
Workplace injury is a serious problem with many costs including the cost of well-being and even loss or life. The causes and prevention of injury is a complex issue with many factors including adequately functioning machines safety equipment and so on.
Interestingly many of the factors relating to workplace injury can be addressed by Industrial Psychologists (also called IO psychologists). IO psychologists are trained to address the human factors at work. Examples will be useful.
Plaintiff hired pathology expert witness to opine on pain and suffering in a products liability case. Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony. The court granted in the motion in part and denied the motion in part.
Plaintiff sued Defendant related to unfair and deceptive business practices related to exercise equipment. The defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s biomedical engineering expert witness. The court granted the motion.
Appellant was convicted on numerous counts of child sexual abuse by the trial court. He appealed this conviction, arguing that the court erred when it allowed expert witness testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS). The appeals court affirmed the convictions of the lower court.
Defendant insurance company hired construction expert witness to opine on allocation of responsibility for specific costs in project. The plaintiff filed motions to exclude this testimony. The court ruled to allow the expert report.
Plaintiff hired expert to opine on the cause of a fire in a house leased by defendants. Defendants filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of the fire expert. The court ruled in favor of plaintiff. Continue reading