Expert Witness Blog

Summary:  Environmental Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify even though the defendant argued that he did not follow NCP standards when obtaining field samples of a hazard contaminant.

Facts:  This case (Courtland Co. v. Union Carbide Corp. – United States District Court – Southern District of West Virginia – April 29th, 2022) involves a hazardous materials claim.  The plaintiff, Courtland, alleges that properties owned by the defendant, Union Carbine Corp (UCC), released hazardous contaminants that have spilled onto Courtland’s property.  In support of these claims, Court hired Environmental Engineering Expert Witness Dr. D. Scott Simonton to provide expert witness testimony.  UCC filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Mortgage Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendant argued that he was not qualified to offer an opinion because he has never worked for a mortgage servicer or servicing regulator.

Facts:  This case (United States ex rel. Mitchell v. CIT Bank, N.A. – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – April 26, 2022) involves a claim under the False Claims Act (FCA).  The Relator, Andrew Mitchell, through the plaintiff, The United States, alleges that the defendant, One West Bank, submitted false claims to the Government in order to obtain payment under three Government loan-modification programs.  Mitchel alleges that One West Bank certified to numerous Government agencies that it was in compliance with specific laws and regulations, despite it knowing that it was not.  One West Bank’s false certifications caused the government to make payments to the bank that it wouldn’t have made.  In order to assist in his case, Mitchell hired Mortgage Expert Witness Nelson Locke, Esq. to provide expert testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Roofing Expert Witness allowed to testify even though the defendant argued that the expert did not provide any reasoning which ties the data he relied on to the conclusions he made in his report with respect to roof damage.

Facts: This case (J.A. LANIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. ROBBINS ELECTRA MANAGEMENT, LLC – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – April 26th, 2022) involves claims for a breach of a Public Insurance Adjuster Contract, fraud, fraud by nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel.  The issue involves hail damage to roofs of buildings owned by the defendant, Robbins Electra Management.   The dispute in this case is whether the hail damage occurred on either March 23rd, 2016 or June 5th, 2018.  The plaintiff, Lanier, hired Roofing Expert Witness Gary B. Treider to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Law Enforcement Expert Witness testimony allowed despite the plaintiff’s argument that his opinions are biased and that the defendants are lying, which does not support the facts of the case.

Facts:  This case (Wood v. City of San Antonio et al – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – April 25th, 2022) involves a claim under section 1983 related to damages following the plaintiff’s arrest outside of her friend’s domicile in February 2019.  Wood filed suit against numerous defendants, including the City of San Antonio and a number of police officers who were called to the scene.  Wood alleges that the defendants violated her Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure as well as violation of her right to due process.  To assist in their case, the defendants hired Law Enforcement Expert Witness Craig Miller to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Nutrition Expert Witness testimony allowed despite the defendants argument that he contradicted his own previous opinions that “ALL of the SAM-e manufactured by Vitamins Because was deficient.”

Facts:  This case (Malgeri et al v. Vitamins Because LLC et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – April 20th, 2022) involves a claim of mislabeling of a dietary supplement.  The plaintiff, Noah Malgeri, alleges that he purchased S-Adenosyl Methionine (“SAM-e”) dietary supplements from the defendant, Vitamins Because, and that the suppliment contained significantly less amounts of SAM-e ingredient than what was represented on their labels.  Malgeri hired Nutrition Expert Witness Dr. Douglas S. Kalman to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Human Factors Engineering Expert Witness not allowed to provide testimony as the defendants argued correctly that the expert is a psychologist and human factors expert and not an engineer.

Facts:  This case (GOMEZ et al v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA INC et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Georgia – April 22nd, 2019) involves a products liability claim.  The claim involves a plastic gas container that exploded when the plaintiff poured a mixture of diesel and gasoline onto a mostly extinguished fire.  The plaintiffs have hired Human Factors Engineering Expert Witness Dr. Robert Cunitz to provide testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Statistics Expert Witness testimony allowed despite the defendant’s argument attacking the expert’s claim rate and its release of an allegedly defective product.

Facts:  This case (Cone et al v. Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – March 28th, 2019) involves alleged manufacturing and/or marketing defects in certain of the defendants toilet tanks.  The plaintiffs have alleged four causes of action against the defendant: 1) Strict products liability; 2) breach of implied warranty; 3) negligence; and 4) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”).  The plaintiffs have hired Statistics Expert Witness Dr. Shawn Capser to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Endocrinology Expert Witness not allowed to provide testimony as the defendant argued that the expert’s opinion that soy causes hypothyroidism has not been validated or tested.

Facts:  This case (LOVERDI et al v. MEDIFAST, INC. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Pennsylvania – May 15th, 2019) involves a products liability claim.  The plaintiff claims that she developed hypothyroidism from ingesting soy-based dietary products that are manufactured, marketed, and sold by the defendant.  In order to prove her claim, the plaintiff has hired Jonathan Williams, M.D., M.MSc (Endocrinology Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Jails & Prisons Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony in part even though the defendants argued that he did not reliably apply his methodology when assessing the use of force at issue in this case.

Facts:  This case (Jackson et al v. Catanzariti et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Georgia – May 14th, 2019) involves the use of force against two prisoners.  The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants alleging that the defendants, correctional officers, violated their constitutional right to be free from excessive force while they were incarcerated.  The plaintiffs have hired Eugene E. Atherton (Jails & Prisons Expert Witness) to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Insurance Expert Witness is allowed to testify even though the plaintiffs argued that he is unqualified because he does not have any experience in providing expert opinions on attorneys’ fees in trademark litigation.

Facts:  This case (America Can! et al v. Arch Insurance Company et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – April 9th, 2022) involves an insurance claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by the plaintiff when it defended a trademark infringement case.  In December 2014, the plaintiff was sued by Kars 4 Kids in federal court alleging trademark infringement.  While the plaintiff were victorious in the trial (with the judge awarding monetary damages and injunctive relief), they were denied requests for attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages. America Can! filed a claim with Arch Insurance Company, but the defendant refused to fully reimburse them for fees and expenses.  America Can! subsequently filed suit against Arch Insurance Company.  The defendant hired Insurance Expert Witness Christopher Martin to provide expert testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Martin from testifying.

Continue reading