Articles Posted in Daubert

Summary: Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness allowed to testify as the court ruled that his expert opinion was reliable as he reconstructed the accident based on the truck driver.

Facts:  This case (Irwin Tripp v. Walmart, Inc et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – November 16, 2022) involves a personal injury lawsuit.  The plaintiff, Irwin Tripp, was injured when a terminal tractor hit him and dragged him after unloading goods.  The plaintiff sustained horrible injuries, losing both his legs in the accident.  The defendant hired Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness Donald J. Fournier to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Forensic Accounting Expert Witness testimony is allowed even though the defendant argued that the expert’s discussion of common stock options was a legal conclusion.

Facts:  This case (Lindland v. TuSimple, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Southern District of California – October 24, 2022) involves a breach of contract claim. The plaintiff, John Lindland, alleges that his former employer fired him so as to avoid not paying him his stock options, which would have been due to him.  The plaintiff hired Forensic Accounting Expert Witness Horacio Valeiras to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant, TuSimple, filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Mathematical Sciences Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendants argued that the expert’s report lacks meaningful independent analysis and that his analysis is just an application of another expert in this case.

Facts:  This case (Ploss v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. et al – United States States District Court – Northern District of Illinois – October 28, 2022)  involves a claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.  The plaintiff, Harry Ploss, alleges that the defendants, Kraft Food Group and Mondelez Global, had a large position of wheat futures, attempting to have an influence on prices.  In addition, the plaintiff also alleges that that Kraft engaged in market manipulation as they engaged in wash trades and reported it to the public as legitimate transactions.  Ploss hired Mathematical Sciences Expert Witness Charles Robinson to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Architecture Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the plaintiff argued that an opinion on substantial similarity is not needed as the test is whether the designs are similar to an ordinary observer.

Facts:  This case (Design Basics, LLC v. Forrester Wehrle Homes, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Ohio – May 23rd, 2019) involves a copyright infringement claim.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant infringed their copyrights in a number of architectural plans and used them without permission to build single-family homes in Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan.  The defendant has hired Architecture Expert Witness Richard Kraly to provide testimony in this case.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Electronic Discovery Expert Witness testimony not excluded even though the defendant argued that testimony on “Null Message Bodies” is not relevant because it is not evidence of user deletion.

Facts:  This case (Pajak v. Under Armour – United States District Court – Northern District of West Virginia – October 24, 2022) involves a claim of wrongful discharge.  The plaintiff, Cynthia D. Pajak, filed suit against her former employer, Under Armour, alleging that she was discharged in retaliation because she reported numerous instances of workplace behavior that she deemed inappropriate.  In addition, Pajak argues that she was a victim of gender discrimination.  To assist in her case, the plaintiff hired Electronic Discovery Expert Witness Craig Corkrean to provide expert testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Statistics Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the defendant argued that they have not been able to replicate the expert’s analysis.

Facts:  This case (Stewart v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Southern District of California – October 5, 2022) involves two class action claims.  The plaintiffs, Pamela Stewart and Zulekha Abdul allege that the defendant, Quest Diagnostic Clinical Laboratories, impeded its Patient Service Representatives (“PSR”) from getting rest periods.  In addition, the plaintiffs allege that Black PSRs are underpaid and underpromoted compared to white PSRs.  To assist in their case, the plaintiffs hired Statistics Expert Witness David Neumark to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Business Valuation Expert Witness testimony is allowed despite the defendant’s argument that her report is unreliable because she applied the incorrect valuation date and the wrong evaluation standard.

Facts:  This case (Agnelli v. Lennox Mia. Corp – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – May 5th, 2022) involves a dispute over a business.  The plaintiff, Diego Agnelli, divorced his wife Analia Castellanos in late 2019.  According to Agnelli, his former father in law, Juan Castellanos, ousted him from the family business by terminating his employment contract and buying off his minority interest in the company, the Lennox Hotel.  The plaintiff is seeking damages for breach of his employment contract and seeking a judicial dissolution of Lennox.  To assist in her case, Agnelli hired Business Valuation Expert Witness Kathleen Conroy to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Supply Chain Expert Witness not allowed to testify even though the plaintiff’s argued that he has decades of experience in the general field of transportation logistics.

Facts:  In this case (Keystone Transportation Solutions, LLC v. Northwest Hardwoods, Inc et al – United States District Court – Western District of Virginia – April 19th, 2019), the plaintiff alleges that the defendants, one of which was previously the plaintiff’s president and now works for the defendant, interfered with its business interests and improperly gained access to confidential trade secrets underlying a Shipper Savings Model.  The plaintiff has appointed David Steffens (Supply Chain Expert Witness) to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Aviation Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the defense expert admitted that there were flaws in the defendant’s supplier performance management data.

Facts:  This case (Spearman Corporation Marysville Division et al v. The Boeing Company – United States District Court – Western District of Washington – October 11, 2022) involves a breach of contract claim.  The plaintiffs, Spearman Corporation, allege that the defendant (Boeing Company) breached a contract by cancelling $50 million worth of agreements.  The court dismissed all claims except a breach of good faith and fair dealing claim.  To assist with their case, the defendant hired Aviation Expert Witness Stephen Carter to assist in their case.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Employment Expert Witness testimony is granted in part and denied in part even though the plaintiff argued that Crandall’s methodology does not compare to other time and motion studies in similar cases.

Facts: This case (Utne v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc – United States District Court – Northern District of California – May 6th, 2022) involves a purported class action complaint related to unpaid wages.  The plaintiff, John Utne, filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant, Home Depot.  The third amended complaint brings forth five claims against Home Depot: 1) Failure to pay hourly wages, 2) failure to provide adequate written wage statements, 3) failure to pay wages at the termination of employment, 4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition law, and 5) penalties from Home Depot’s violation of numerous state labor codes.  Home Depot has hired Employment Expert Witness Robert Crandall to provide expert testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading