Articles Posted in Daubert

by

Summary: Securities Expert Witness testimony is allowed as the judge determined that “Ponzi schemes” is an allowed topic for expert witness testimony.

Facts:  This case (Hafen v. Howell et al – United States District Court – District of Utah – February 23, 2023) involves a Receiver’s action against the defendants to recover assets obtained from an alleged Ponzi scheme related to rare coins.  In order to support a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff hired Securities Expert Witness Jonathan O’ Hafen to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant’s have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Medical Devices Expert Witness testimony is granted in part and denied in part as the judge ruled that the expert was qualified to offer an opinion on the alleged inadequacy of the Injectafer label.

Facts:  This case (CROCKETT v. LUITPOLD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Pennsylvania – February 23, 2023) involves a drug product liability claim.  The plaintiff, Katherine Crockett, claims that she sustained injuries after she was given Injectafer, an iron-replacement medication.  Crockett says that she developed hypophosphatemia after being given the drug.  The plaintiff hired Medical Devices Expert Witness George Samaras, Ph.D. to provide expert witness testimony to assist in her case.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Employment Expert Witness testimony partially allowed even though the court ruled that the expert was qualified to offer an opinion on reduction in force because of her experience in human resources.

Facts:  This case (Self v. Perspecta Enterprise Solutions, LLC et al – United States District Court – Southern District of California – February 15, 2023) involves a claim of discrimination and wrongful termination.  The plaintiff, Kathleen Self, alleges that she was terminated by the defendant based on her gender and in retaliation for complaining about her manager,.  The defendant claims that the plaintiff was terminated due to a reduction in force at the company.  To help her with her claim, the plaintiff hired Employment Expert Witness Debra Reilly, J.D. to provide expert witness testimony on her behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Public Opinion & Survey Research Expert Witness testimony allowed in Fair Housing Act case even though his expertise is in mixed methods and not specifically social sciences.

Facts:  This case (National Fair Housing Alliance et al v. Bank of America, National Association et al – United States District Court – District of Maryland – February 8th, 2023) involves a claim of violation of the Fair Housing Act.  The plaintiffs allege that Bank of America and Safeguard’s management of certain properties has a statistically significant racial disparity, which is a violation of the Fair Housing Act.  To help with their case, the plaintiffs hired four experts to provide expert witness testimony.  One of those experts is Public Opinion & Survey Research Expert Witness Dr. Michael D. Fetters.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

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

by

Summary:  Compensation Expert Witness expert witness testimony not allowed even though the plaintiff blamed the defendant for the plaintiff’s failure to supplement the expert’s July 2020 report.

Facts:  This case (Robles v. Eminent Medical Center LLC et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – August 3, 2022) involves an employment discrimination claim.  the plaintiff, April Robles, alleges that her former employer, Eminent Medical Center, fired her because she asked for benefits under the Family Medical Leave Act and due to her alleged disability.  In addition, she claims that the defendants failed to accommodate her alleged disability.  She filed sued, seeking damages for lost compensation and benefits as well as liquidated damages prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees.  In order to prove her case, Robles hired Compensation Expert Witness Dr. Allyn Needham, Ph.D to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude Dr. Needham’s testimony.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the defendant argued that while he has experience with commercial elevators, he does not have experience with residential elevators.

Facts:  This case (Voeltz v. Bridge Charleston Investments E LLC et al – United States District Court – District of South Carolina – April 12th, 2019) involves an injury involving an elevator.  The plaintiff, renter of a condominium in Folly Beach, California, was on the first floor of the property and opened an access door to the elevator.  The plaintiff stepped through the door and fell down the elevator shaft because the elevator was not at the floor.  The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant.  The plaintiff has hired Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness John Koshak to provide testimony.  Defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

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

by

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

by

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