Expert Witness Blog

Summary: Automobile Mechanical & Body Repair Expert Witness testimony is granted in part and denied in part even though the court opined that he was qualified to provide expert witness testimony in an automobile products liability case.

Facts:  This case (Grover et al v. BMW of North America, LLC et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Ohio – January 24th, 2022) involves a products liability claim against BMW.  The plaintiffs state that their vehicles, all equipped with a N63 turbocharged engines, consumed an absorbent amount of engine oil.  BMW claims that the excessive burning of oil was normal.  The plaintiffs hired Automobile Mechanical & Body Repair Expert Witness Darren Manzari to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude Manzari from giving expert testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Railroad Expert Witness testimony not allowed in personal injury case as the defense argued that he was not qualified to offer testimony in this case.

Facts: This case (Wilks v. BNSF Railway Company – United States District Court – Eastern District of Oklahoma – August 27, 2020) involves an injury suffered by the plaintiff while replacing a broken knuckle on a locomotive. The plaintiff hired Railroad Expert Witness David Anthony Rangel to provide testimony on his behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Rangel.

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: Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness testimony not decided as the court opined that there were compelling arguments on both sides.

Facts:  This case (Bailon v. Landstar Ranger Inc – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – September 27th, 2019) involves a car accident.  The plaintiff alleges that the driver other the other car, acting in within the court and scope of the defendant, his employer, collided with her vehicle.  The plaintiff alleges that she suffered severe injuries, and seeks compensation for those injuries.  The defendant intends to call Officer Christopher Cortemelia as an Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Overview: Correctional Healthcare Expert Witness allowed to testify in part as the court stated that his expert witness testimony on the life expectancy of the deceased is not reliable.

Facts: This case (Paugh et al v. Ashley Valley Medical Center et al – United States District Court – District of Utah – August 8th, 2023) involves a claim by a prisoner that the defendants violated his constitutional rights because they failed to adequately provide medical care for his serious medical condition. The defendants hired Correctional Healthcare Expert Witness Dr. Kennon Tubbs to provide expert witness testimony on their behalf.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

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: 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: Spine Surgery Expert Witness allowed even though the plaintiff argued that the expert witness did not have the knowledge or education to testify on velocity of the collision.

Facts: This case (Miller v. Secura Supreme Insurance Company – United States District Court – District of Colorado – Jul 6th, 2023) involves an insurance claim for uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits. The defendant paid out $22,436.71 and stated to the plaintiff that they disputed the cause and the extent of the injuries claimed because he was also in an accident in 2017. The defendant requested that the plaintiff go to an independent evaluation by B. Andrew Castro, M.D.  After Dr. Castro submitted his report, the defendant continued to deny additional monies to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed suit. As part of the case, the defendant hired Dr. Castro as a Spine Surgery Expert Witness. The plaintiff then filed suit to exclude Dr. Castro’s expert witness testimony.

Continue reading

Summary:  Statistics Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony even though the defendant argued that his opinion should be excluded due to inconsistencies and errors.

Facts:  This case (Cone et al v. Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – September 17th, 2019) involves a claim of alleged manufacturing and/or marketing defects of ceramic toilet tanks made by the the defendant.  The plaintiff has hired Shawn Casper, Ph.D. (Statistics Expert Witness) to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of this witness.

Continue reading

Summary: Epidemiology Expert Witness allowed to testify in products liability case despite arguments that she changed her testimony.

Facts:  This case (Barrera, et al. v. Monsanto Company  – Superior Court of the State of Delaware – May 31st, 2019) involves a products liability claim.  The plaintiffs allege that their cancer was caused by exposure to the defendant’s herbicide product, commonly known as Roundup.  The plaintiffs have hired Epidemiology Expert Witness Dr. Beate Ritz to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading