Expert Witness Blog

Summary: Software Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the plaintiff alleges that the expert did not have the qualifications or experience to opine on Pharmacy Benefit Managers

Facts:  This case (Medimpact Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc – United States District Court – Southern District of California – October 7, 2022) involves a claims of misappropriation of trade secrets under state and federal law.  The plaintiff alleges that IQVIA created a scheme to steal and target their customers, destroy a joint venture, and misappropriate their trade secrets.  The defendant hired Software Expert Witness Barbara Frederiksen-Cross to provide expert testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Economics Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the expert argued that the decedent would reliably become a successful broadcaster if he was able to stay sober.

Facts:  This case (Lawler v. Hardeman County, Tennessee et al – United States District Court – Western District of Tennessee – October 5. 2022) involves a claim against a prison.  The plaintiff, Jerry Lawler, filed this action against the defendants, claiming that they were deliberately indifferent to Brian Christopher Lawler, after they brought him to jail after being arrested for driving under the influence.  After the deputy took Brian Lawler to jail, he committed suicide.  To assist in the case, the plaintiff hired Economics Expert Witness George A. Barrett to provide testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Railroad Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony even though the defendant argued that his testimony was not reliable as he does not have any specialized knowledge about snow removal in a railyard.

Facts:  This case (Steggall v. BNSF Railway Company – United States District Court – District of Nebraska – April 4th, 2019) involves a claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”).  The plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell on ice in the defendant’s Alliance, Nebraska railyard and sustained injuries.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant negligently and carelessly failed to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to work by committing enumerated negligent acts or omissions.  The plaintiff has hired Railroad Expert Witness Brian Hansen to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Law & Legal Expert Witness testimony is not allowed even though the plaintiffs maintain that the expert’s opinion on the retention of FTCs was a best practice analysis.

Facts: This case (Romano et al v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – May 9th, 2022) involves a putative class action claim against John Hancock Life Insurance Company.  The plaintiffs, Eric and Todd Romano, are trustees in a contribution plan who purchased a Group Variable Annuity Contract from the defendants.  To support their claims, the plaintiff hired Law & Legal Expert Witness Bruce Pingree to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Biomechanics Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the defendant argued that the tests relied on by the expert were single-impact and non multi-impact.

Facts:  This case (Riley v. Tesla, Inc – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – May 11th, 2022) involves a fatal crash of a Tesla automobile.  The plaintiff, the estate of Barrett Riley, alleges that two months prior to an accident that killed Barrett Riley, they asked Tesla to install a speed limiter in the car, so that the vehicle could not go over 85 mph.  Tesla states that they did install the speed limiter, but later removed it after the car was taken into Tesla for servicing.  Tesla admits that it did not inform the Rileys that the speed limiter was disabled.  In order to prove their case, the Rileys hired Biomechanics Expert Witness Kelly B. Kennett to provide expert witness testimony in this case.  Tesla filed a motion to exclude Mr. Kennett’s testimony under Daubert.

Continue reading

Summary: Printing & Publishing Expert Witness not allowed to testify even though the plaintiff argued that the expert was qualified to offer an opinion on fair use based on his decades of work on websites in the newspaper industry.

Facts: This case (Emmerich Newspapers, Incorporated v. Particle Media, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Mississippi – September 20, 2022) involves a claim of copyright infringement.  The plaintiff owns local newspapers in 3 southern states.  The defendant, Particle Media runs a website called Newsbreak, which links and indexes third-party news content.  Newsbreak publishes snippets and full-text articles from online newspapers.  After numerous motions and decisions, the only issue remaining in this case is if the fair use doctrine is in use when the snippets are published.  The plaintiff has hired Printing & Publishing Expert Witness Wyatt Emmerich 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: 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: 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: Forensic Accounting Expert Witness testimony is not excluded even though the defendant argued that the expert made assumptions that the plaintiff would work to a specific age.

Facts:  This case (Kinney v. IBM – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – July 8th, 2022) involves a claim of age discrimination.  The plaintiffs allege that IBM’s senior executives created a scheme to replace older employees with a younger workforce and then attempted to conceal it.  The plaintiff alleges that IBM put in place rolling layoffs which included older employees and gave them negative reviews to justify terminating them.  Kinney sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and other state statutes.  The plaintiff hired Forensic Accounting Expert Witness Mark Rambin to provide expert testimony.  IBM filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying, alleging that his opinion is not based on reliable methodology, is not factually supported, and is based on incorrect assumptions.

Continue reading