by

In the case of Gates Rubber Company v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., 167 F.R.D. 90 (D. Colo. 1996), the testimony of a Materials Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing allegations of trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition in the industrial manufacturing sector.

Background of the Case

Gates Rubber Company, a leader in the development and production of industrial belts and related products, filed a lawsuit against Bando Chemical Industries, a competing manufacturer, along with several former Gates employees. The lawsuit alleged that Bando and the employees misappropriated Gates’ proprietary materials and software related to the design and production of industrial belts.

Continue reading

by

In the case of Baker v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., No. 1:16-CV-917 (LEK/DJS) (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2024), the testimony of a Plastics Expert Witness was pivotal in evaluating claims related to environmental contamination allegedly caused by the defendants’ plastic manufacturing processes.

Background of the Case

Residents of Hoosick Falls, New York, brought a class action lawsuit against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. and Honeywell International Inc., alleging that the companies contaminated the local groundwater with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical used in the production of Teflon and other plastics. PFOA is a persistent synthetic chemical that has been linked to various health risks, including cancer, thyroid disease, and immune system effects.

Continue reading

by

In the case of Courtland Co. v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 2:19-cv-00894 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 29, 2022), the testimony of a Hazardous Materials Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing claims of environmental contamination and evaluating the scientific reliability of expert methodologies in a hazardous materials dispute.

Background of the Case

Courtland Company filed a lawsuit against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), claiming that operations at UCC’s facility led to the release and migration of hazardous substances onto Courtland’s adjacent property. Courtland alleged that these contaminants, including heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), diminished the value of their property and posed environmental and health risks. The suit included claims of negligence, trespass, and violations of federal environmental laws.

Continue reading

by

In the case of Rymers v. CPS Energy, filed in 2021 in San Antonio, Texas, the testimony of an Explosions Expert Witness was instrumental in determining the cause of a devastating natural gas explosion and establishing liability for the catastrophic event.

Background of the Case

On February 23, 2021, a powerful explosion leveled the home of Robert and Virginia Rymers, severely injuring both and killing their two dogs. The couple sustained extensive burns and trauma, requiring multiple surgeries and ongoing rehabilitation. Following the incident, the Rymers filed a lawsuit against CPS Energy, the municipally owned utility provider responsible for the delivery and maintenance of natural gas to their residence.

Continue reading

by

In the case of Bell v. Swift Adhesives, Inc., 804 F. Supp. 1577 (S.D. Ga. 1992), the testimony of an Adhesives Expert Witness played a central role in evaluating the scientific basis for claims that chemical exposure from industrial adhesives caused a worker’s cancer.

Background of the Case

Gazela Bell filed a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of her late husband, Ronnie Bell, against Swift Adhesives, Inc. and Ashland Chemical, Inc. She alleged that Ronnie Bell’s liver cancer was caused by occupational exposure to industrial adhesives and solvents during his time working at Great Dane Trailers, Inc. Specifically, she pointed to a product called Fome Bond, manufactured by Swift Adhesives, which contained methylene chloride and 1,1,1-trichloroethane—chemicals known to have toxic properties.

Continue reading

by

In the case of Ghirardelli Chocolate Company v. GXO Warehouse Company, filed in the Northern District of California in 2007, the testimony of a Warehouse Operations Expert Witness was pivotal in evaluating the performance and contractual obligations of a third-party logistics provider (3PL) during a disputed warehouse transition.

Background of the Case

Ghirardelli Chocolate Company entered into a warehousing services agreement with GXO Warehouse Company (formerly operating under a different name), engaging them to provide third-party logistics and warehouse management services for a new facility in Lathrop, California. A key aspect of the agreement was the implementation of a new warehouse management system (WMS), known as WM10, which would support inventory tracking, order processing, and overall warehouse efficiency.

Continue reading

by

In the case of Anderson v. Jim’s Restaurants, Inc., filed in January 2022 in San Antonio, Texas, the testimony of a Restaurants Expert Witness played a pivotal role in assessing the safety standards and maintenance practices of the establishment.

Background of the Case

Chris and Catherine Anderson were dining at a Jim’s Restaurants location when a large plate glass window suddenly shattered near their table. Glass shards struck both individuals, resulting in injuries and emotional distress. The couple subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking over $1 million in damages, alleging that Jim’s Restaurants, Inc. and its property management affiliate failed to maintain a safe premises and neglected to address a known hazard.

Continue reading

by

In the case of Concho Resources Inc. v. Ellison, No. 13-20-00055-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2022), the involvement of an Oil & Gas Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing the admissibility of testimony regarding alleged lost production damages in an oil and gas dispute.

Background of the Case

Concho Resources Inc., an oil and gas company operating in Texas, entered into a dispute with Ellison related to alleged interference with oil production from a particular well. Concho claimed that Ellison’s actions caused a significant decline in production, resulting in financial losses. As part of its lawsuit, Concho sought to recover damages for lost production and retained internal technical personnel to support its claims.

Continue reading

by

In the case of Hawley v. Hannaford Bros. Co. LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00297 (D. Vt. 2018), the testimony of a Retail Store Design & Operations Expert Witness played a significant role in evaluating the safety and design of a store display involved in a premises liability claim.

Background of the Case

In 2013, the plaintiff, Mary Hawley, was shopping at a Hannaford supermarket in Middlebury, Vermont. While navigating the store aisles, her pant leg caught on a protruding wire hook from a spider rack display, causing her to fall and fracture her hip. Hawley filed a lawsuit against Hannaford Bros. Co. LLC, alleging that the store’s negligent design and maintenance of the display created a dangerous condition for customers.

Continue reading

by

In the case of Leon Max v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-37 (U.S. Tax Court 2021), the testimony of an Apparel & Textile Industry Expert Witness was pivotal in evaluating the legitimacy of research and development (R&D) tax credits claimed by a fashion designer.

Background of the Case

Leon Max, a prominent fashion designer and owner of Leon Max, Inc. (LMI), claimed R&D tax credits under Internal Revenue Code Section 41 for activities related to the development of new apparel designs and manufacturing processes. LMI argued that its design and production process met the technical criteria for qualified research and thus qualified for the federal credit.

Continue reading