by

Summary: Labor Economics Expert Witness testimony is allowed because the court ruled that her expert opinions on the calculation of damages will help the jury.

Facts:  This case (EEOC v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company, et al – United States District Court – District of Colorado – March 31, 2023), involves an employment discrimination claim brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).  The plaintiff, La’Tonya Ford, alleges that, after she moved to the defendant’s Denver office, she was discriminated against based on her sex, color, and race.  She claims that she was passed over for promotions even though she was a top performer in the office.  To enhance her case, the plaintiff hired Labor Economics Expert Witness Dr. Patricia Pacey to provide expert witness testimony on here behalf.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

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

by

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

by

Summary: Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness testimony allowed because the court concluded that his use of simulations was reliable and helpful to the jury.

Facts:  This case (Abbott et al v. Mega Trucking, LLC et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Alabama – March 24, 2023) involves a personal liability claim resulting from a crash between two tractor-trailers.  The plaintiff, Touri Abbott, alleges that Patrice Lumumba Morgan did not yield the right of way and is seeking recovery under numerous bases including negligence and wantonness.  The plaintiff hired three experts to prove her case, including Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness William F. Messerschmidt.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of these experts, including Mr Messerschmidt.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Professional Engineering Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony in part even though the defendant argued that the expert’s opinions would not assist the trier of fact.

Facts:  This case (Leftridge v. Speedway LLC – United States District Court – Northern District of Indiana – October 10th, 2019) involves a slip and fall claim.  The plaintiff Tayell Leftridge alleges that the defendant Speedway should be liable for injuries that she suffered when she slipped and fell on a wet floor at one of defendant’s stores in Hobart, Indiana.  The plaintiff has hired H. Richard Hicks (Professional Engineering Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

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

by

14Summary:  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

by

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

by

Summary: A Weather & Meteorology Expert Witness allowed to testify, in part, in fire litigation caused by lightning despite objections from the plaintiffs that his testimony would not assist the trier of fact.

Facts:  This case (Philmar Dairy, LLC et al v. Armstrong Farms, et al – United States District Court – District of New Mexico – July 12th, 2019) involves a dispute over the delivery of alfalfa hay.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendant did not deliver over 2,500 tons of hay and did not refund the money to the plaintiffs.  The defendants state that a fire caused lightning destroyed the hay.  The plaintiffs state that the defendants fabricated the existence of the fire.  The defendants hired Dr. Elizabeth Austin (Weather & Meteorology Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

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