Articles Posted in Daubert

Summary: Education & Schools Expert Witness testimony is granted in part and denied in part despite the fact that the plaintiff argued that her expert opinion on Title IX is not a proper subject of expert testimony.

Facts: This case (Pogorzelska v. VanderCook College of Music – United States District Court – Northern District of Illinois – June 5th, 2023) involves a Title IX claim against a college. The plaintiff, Erika Pogorzelska, alleges she was sexually assaulted at an off-campus party when she was attending school at the defendant college. The plaintiff claims that the defendant did not address her allegations of sexual assault and harassment, and then retaliated against her, which is in violation of Title IX of federal education law. The defendant hired Education & Schools Expert Witness Sandra Schuster to provide an expert opinion. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to exclude Schuster’s expert witness testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Software Engineering Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the United States alleged that they provided more expert witness information in discovery.

Facts: This case (United States of America v. Minkkinen et al – United States District Court – Southern District of West Virginia – June 26, 2023) involves a federal criminal indictment related to the theft of trader secrets by former employees of Deloitte. The United States Government alleges that the defendants copied and downloaded numerous pieces of proprietary information and utilized that information during their employment at a competitor.   To support its case, the government hired Software Engineering Expert Witness Walter Overby to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude Mr. Overby from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Jails & Prisons Expert Witness testimony allowed as the plaintiff did not cite to caselaw regarding his argument that the expert works for the defendant and his opinion should be excluded.

Facts:  This case (Romero v. CORE CIVIC, INC – United States District Court – District of New Mexico – September 28, 2023) involves a breach of duty and constitutional rights against a prisoner in a private detention center.  The plaintiff, Ruben Romero, claims that the defendants placed him a unit with violent men, who beat him and left him unconscious.  The plaintiff also alleges that nobody came to his aid for half an hour. The defendant hired Jails & Prisons Expert Witness Charles Keeton to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Mr. Keeton’s testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Marketing Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the plaintiff argued that the expert did not employ any methodology to his marketing opinion.

Facts: This case (United States v. Runner – United States District Court – Eastern District of New York – May 30, 2023) involves a government claim against the defendant related to a mail order psychic services scheme. The defendant was charged on October 18, 2018 with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud as well as conspiracy to commit money laundering.  The Government claims that Patrice Runner told her clients that they would receive personalized psychic services from popular psychics in exchange for money.  The defendant hired Marketing Expert Witness David Gal to provide expert testimony. The Government filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Life Care Planning Expert Witness testimony not allowed because the expert did not have a medical endorsement from a qualified medical expert.

Facts:  This case (Norman v. Leonard’s Express, Inc. – United States District Court – Western District of Virginia – April 21, 2023) involves a motor vehicle accident between Yvette Norman (the plaintiff) and Julian J. Kaczor, the operator of a semitruck owned by Leonard’s Express, Inc (the defendant).  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Life Care Planning Expert Witness Shelby Dubato.

Continue reading

Summary: Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness testimony is allowed because the court ruled that his expert opinion was not speculative because his testimony mirrored that of the state standard in Texas.

Facts:  This case (Connell West Trucking Co., Inc. et al v. Estes Express Lines et al – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – November 22, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  One of the plaintiffs, Gucharan Singh, is seeking damages for future medical expenses for the injuries to his knee.  The plaintiff hired Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness Dr. Robert Montgomery to provide expert testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Internal Medicine Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the plaintiff argued that the expert did not act within the standard of care when she did not contact an on-call physician.

Facts:  This case (Griffin v. Coffee County et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Georgia – August 19, 2022) involves a wrongful death action involving a prisoner who died while in custody.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the decedent’s (Shannon Rewis) standard of care because they left him in an observation cell when they found out that Mr. Lewis had ingested methamphetamine, rather than providing treatment or sending him somewhere else to receive care.  The defendants have hired Internal Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Robert Hall to provide an expert opinion on this case.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Cybersecurity Expert Witness testimony allowed in part as the court decided that the expert’s testimony was reliable based on his experience in cypersecurity forensics.

Facts:  This case (Savidge et al v. Pharm-Save, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Western District of Kentucky – March 31, 2023) involves a data breach claim.  The plaintiffs Andrea Savidge and Beth Lynch, former employees of the defendant, claim that Pharm-Save should be held liable for a data-breach in which sensitive and personal information was compromised.  The complaint maintains that a few Pharma-Save employees released this information to cyber-criminals who posed as company executives.  To assist their case, the plaintiffs hired Cybersecurity Expert Witness Vincent D’Agostino to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Economics Expert Witness allowed to testify in employment lawsuit even though the defendants argued that his testimony was not reliable.

Facts:  This case (Ferraro v. Convercent, Inc. et al – United States District Court – District of Colorado – December 12th, 2018) involves an employment dispute.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant wrongfully discharged him.  To assist in his case, the plaintiff hired Dr. Michael Orlando (Economics Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. Orlando.

Continue reading

Summary: Hotel & Hospitality Expert Witness deemed allowed to testify as the court opined that the expert opinions have a sufficient basis in the alleged facts of the case even though the expert recreated records provided by the plaintiff’s son.

Facts:  This case (Patel v. Patel et al – United States District Court – Western District of Oklahoma – January 4th, 2019) involves a family dispute over family dealings.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants shorted him when they distributed proceeds from a sale of a hotel business.  The plaintiff seeks to recover the claimed shortfall and other damages under the legal theories of breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraud.  The defendants have counterclaimed for breach of loan contracts, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion, and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff has hired Hotel & Hospitality Expert Witness Bishok Dhungana to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony in this case.

Continue reading