Expert Witness Blog

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

Summary: Oncology Expert Witness testimony granted in part even though the defendant argued that the expert does not have experience in T-32 NIH training grants

Facts:  This case (DURANDO v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA – United States District Court – Eastern District of Pennsylvania – July 6th, 2022) involves a claim of retaliation.  The plaintiff, Michael Durando, alleges that he was constructively discharged from his position as a Postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania because he believed that a colleague was discriminated against by her lab supervisor due to her pregnancy and that his supervisor was misusing federal grant monies.  In support of his claim, Durando hired Oncology Expert Witness Dr. Lynn R. Hlatky to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Environmental Engineering Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the defendants argued that the expert was not qualified to offer an opinion because he is not a licensed chemical engineer in California.

Facts:  This case (San Francisco Baykeeper v. Sunnyvale et al – United States District Court – Northern District of California – September 12, 2022) involves a claim filed by San Francisco Baykeeper against the cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View.  The plaintiff claims that the defendants have violates provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  The plaintiff alleges that they tested samples of bacterial from numerous storm sewer systems and the data states that the cities’ stormwater discharges and the MS4 outfalls exceed bacteria water standards.  To prove their case, the plaintiff hired Environmental Engineering Expert Witness Kevin Draganchuk to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Draganchuk.

Continue reading

Summary: Roofing Expert Witness allowed to testify even though the defendant argued that the expert did not provide any reasoning which ties the data he relied on to the conclusions he made in his report with respect to roof damage.

Facts: This case (J.A. LANIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. ROBBINS ELECTRA MANAGEMENT, LLC – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – April 26th, 2022) involves claims for a breach of a Public Insurance Adjuster Contract, fraud, fraud by nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel.  The issue involves hail damage to roofs of buildings owned by the defendant, Robbins Electra Management.   The dispute in this case is whether the hail damage occurred on either March 23rd, 2016 or June 5th, 2018.  The plaintiff, Lanier, hired Roofing Expert Witness Gary B. Treider to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Discussion: Materials Engineering Expert Witness testimony is  granted in part and denied in part even though the defendant argued that the expert should be excluded because he does not have specialized knowledge of transloaders.

Facts:  This case (COTE v. U.S. SILICA COMPANY et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Pennsylvania – August 23, 2022) involves a products liability action. The plaintiff, Dayton Cole, alleges that he nearly lost his hand while he was operating an industrial machine manufactured and distributed by the defendants.  To assist in his case, Cole hired Materials Engineering Expert Witness Michael Tarkanian, P.E. to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Police Procedures Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the defense argued that the expert has experience in crime scene reconstruction based on his history of being a law enforcement professional.

Facts:  This case (Minifield v. City of Winchester et al – United States District Court – Western District of Virginia – July 15th, 2022) involves a claim of excessive force.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant caused the death of the plaintiff’s decedent when he was shot in a foot chase.  The cases revolves on the question of how the decedent received a gunshot wound that subsequently killed him.  The defendant, Stephen Sills, hired Police Procedures Expert Witness Gerald Summers to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Occupational Medicine Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the expert argued that there is a lack of data related to the oil spill.

Facts:  This case (Coleman v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – June 28th, 2022) involves a personal injury claim arising out of exposure to toxic chemicals after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  The plaintiff, Steve Coleman, alleges that his exposure to carcinogenic compounds has resulted in numerous conditions, including light sensitivity, chronic eye sensitivity, and blurred vision.  In order to assist with his case, the plaintiff has hired Occupational Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Jerald Cook to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant, BP Exploration & Production has filed a motion to exclude Dr. Cook’s expert witness testimony into evidence.

Continue reading

Summary: Insurance Expert Witness is allowed to testify even though the plaintiffs argued that he is unqualified because he does not have any experience in providing expert opinions on attorneys’ fees in trademark litigation.

Facts:  This case (America Can! et al v. Arch Insurance Company et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – April 9th, 2022) involves an insurance claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by the plaintiff when it defended a trademark infringement case.  In December 2014, the plaintiff was sued by Kars 4 Kids in federal court alleging trademark infringement.  While the plaintiff were victorious in the trial (with the judge awarding monetary damages and injunctive relief), they were denied requests for attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages. America Can! filed a claim with Arch Insurance Company, but the defendant refused to fully reimburse them for fees and expenses.  America Can! subsequently filed suit against Arch Insurance Company.  The defendant hired Insurance Expert Witness Christopher Martin to provide expert testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Martin from testifying.

Continue reading