by

Summary: Statistics Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the defendant argued that they have not been able to replicate the expert’s analysis.

Facts:  This case (Stewart v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Southern District of California – October 5, 2022) involves two class action claims.  The plaintiffs, Pamela Stewart and Zulekha Abdul allege that the defendant, Quest Diagnostic Clinical Laboratories, impeded its Patient Service Representatives (“PSR”) from getting rest periods.  In addition, the plaintiffs allege that Black PSRs are underpaid and underpromoted compared to white PSRs.  To assist in their case, the plaintiffs hired Statistics Expert Witness David Neumark to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Business Valuation Expert Witness testimony is allowed despite the defendant’s argument that her report is unreliable because she applied the incorrect valuation date and the wrong evaluation standard.

Facts:  This case (Agnelli v. Lennox Mia. Corp – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – May 5th, 2022) involves a dispute over a business.  The plaintiff, Diego Agnelli, divorced his wife Analia Castellanos in late 2019.  According to Agnelli, his former father in law, Juan Castellanos, ousted him from the family business by terminating his employment contract and buying off his minority interest in the company, the Lennox Hotel.  The plaintiff is seeking damages for breach of his employment contract and seeking a judicial dissolution of Lennox.  To assist in her case, Agnelli hired Business Valuation Expert Witness Kathleen Conroy to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Supply Chain Expert Witness not allowed to testify even though the plaintiff’s argued that he has decades of experience in the general field of transportation logistics.

Facts:  In this case (Keystone Transportation Solutions, LLC v. Northwest Hardwoods, Inc et al – United States District Court – Western District of Virginia – April 19th, 2019), the plaintiff alleges that the defendants, one of which was previously the plaintiff’s president and now works for the defendant, interfered with its business interests and improperly gained access to confidential trade secrets underlying a Shipper Savings Model.  The plaintiff has appointed David Steffens (Supply Chain Expert Witness) to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Aviation Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the defense expert admitted that there were flaws in the defendant’s supplier performance management data.

Facts:  This case (Spearman Corporation Marysville Division et al v. The Boeing Company – United States District Court – Western District of Washington – October 11, 2022) involves a breach of contract claim.  The plaintiffs, Spearman Corporation, allege that the defendant (Boeing Company) breached a contract by cancelling $50 million worth of agreements.  The court dismissed all claims except a breach of good faith and fair dealing claim.  To assist with their case, the defendant hired Aviation Expert Witness Stephen Carter to assist in their case.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Employment Expert Witness testimony is granted in part and denied in part even though the plaintiff argued that Crandall’s methodology does not compare to other time and motion studies in similar cases.

Facts: This case (Utne v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc – United States District Court – Northern District of California – May 6th, 2022) involves a purported class action complaint related to unpaid wages.  The plaintiff, John Utne, filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant, Home Depot.  The third amended complaint brings forth five claims against Home Depot: 1) Failure to pay hourly wages, 2) failure to provide adequate written wage statements, 3) failure to pay wages at the termination of employment, 4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition law, and 5) penalties from Home Depot’s violation of numerous state labor codes.  Home Depot has hired Employment Expert Witness Robert Crandall to provide expert testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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