Expert Witness Blog

In the recent case of BDO USA, P.C. v. JSCO Enterprises, Inc., Delaware Superior Court 2025, the role of the International Marketing Expert Witness was pivotal in establishing the extent of reputational and economic harm suffered by the plaintiff, BDO USA, P.C., as a result of a targeted social media smear campaign.

Background and Parties

BDO USA, P.C., a prominent national accounting and advisory firm, initiated litigation against JSCO Enterprises, Inc. and its principal, Eric Jia-Sobota, following Jia-Sobota’s departure from BDO and the subsequent founding of a rival consulting firm, EverGlade. After failed settlement negotiations, BDO became the subject of a coordinated social media attack that disparaged the company and its leadership. BDO alleged that this campaign was orchestrated by the defendants to inflict reputational and economic damage, and sought both compensatory and punitive damages.

Background and Facts

Bentley v. Slavik, 663 F. Supp. 736 (S.D. Ill. 1987) presents a classic dispute over the authenticity and value of a rare violin, with the plaintiff alleging misrepresentation by the seller. In January 1984, plaintiff Bentley responded to a notice posted by defendant Charles Slavik at Indiana University, advertising an Auguste Sebastien Philippe Bernardel violin from 1835, purportedly valued between $15,000 and $20,000. After inspecting the violin at the defendants’ home and receiving a certificate of authenticity from a now-deceased violin maker, Bentley purchased the instrument. However, the violin soon required significant repairs, which were poorly executed, resulting in visible damage and diminished playability. Bentley subsequently sued, claiming the violin was not authentic and had been misrepresented.

Parties

In the recent case of BLAKE v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, INC., No. 1:12-cv-01349 (D.D.C. 2013), the role of the School Security Expert Witness was pivotal in evaluating the adequacy of school safety protocols and the responsibilities of contracted security personnel. This case arose from an incident at a District of Columbia school, where the plaintiff alleged negligent security practices led to personal injury.

Background and Parties

The plaintiff, Blake, brought suit against Securitas Security Services, Inc., a private security contractor, and the District of Columbia, asserting that the defendants failed to provide reasonable security measures at a public school. The complaint centered on an alleged assault that occurred on school premises, raising questions about the sufficiency of security protocols, staff training, and emergency response procedures.

In the pivotal case of Blevins v. New Holland North America, Inc., 128 F. Supp. 2d 952 (W.D. Va. 2001), the role of the Agricultural Engineering Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis of product liability claims arising from a serious farm accident. This case demonstrates the critical influence of expert testimony on both the admissibility of evidence and the ultimate resolution of complex technical disputes in agricultural litigation.

Background and Parties

Plaintiff Douglas M. Blevins suffered significant injuries while operating a hay baler manufactured by New Holland North America, Inc. Blevins alleged that the hay baler was defectively designed because it lacked an emergency stop system, which he contended would have prevented his injuries. The defendant, New Holland, denied any defect and asserted that the machine met all applicable safety standards.

In the landmark case of Bunt v. Altec Industries, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 313 (N.D.N.Y. 1997), the role of the Safety Equipment Expert Witness was pivotal in determining the outcome of a complex product liability dispute involving alleged design defects in heavy industrial equipment. This case provides a clear illustration of how expert testimony on safety equipment standards and engineering principles can directly influence judicial findings on liability and admissibility under Daubert.

Background and Facts

The plaintiff, Bunt, suffered injuries while operating a digger derrick manufactured by Altec Industries, Inc. The incident occurred when Bunt was using the upper controls of the derrick, which lacked a physical guard. The plaintiff alleged that the absence of a guard constituted a design defect, rendering the equipment unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. Altec Industries denied liability, arguing that the design met industry standards and that the equipment was safe when operated as intended.

In the pivotal case of Bureau of Medical Economics v. Cossette, Cal. Ct. App. 1974, the role and compensation of a Medical Valuation Expert Witness were central to the court’s analysis of expert testimony in medical litigation. This case addressed the nuanced distinction between expert witnesses who provide valuation based on specialized knowledge and those who testify as percipient witnesses with direct factual knowledge.

Background and Parties

The plaintiff, Bureau of Medical Economics, represented several doctors seeking compensation for expert witness fees in connection with testimony provided during litigation. The defendant, Cossette, challenged whether each doctor was entitled to an expert witness fee or merely the standard witness fee, depending on the nature of their testimony. The dispute arose from the doctors’ involvement in evaluating and treating a patient, Hession, whose medical condition was at issue in the underlying lawsuit.

In the recent New York Supreme Court case of Caminiti v. Extell W. 57th St. LLC, 2023, the pivotal role of a Labor Law Expert Witness was brought to the forefront in a dispute involving alleged violations of New York Labor Law § 240, commonly known as the “Scaffold Law.” This statute imposes strict liability on property owners and contractors for injuries sustained by workers due to falls from heights or falling objects, provided the safety devices required by the statute were not furnished.

Background and Facts

The plaintiff, acting as the administrator of the estate of the decedent, initiated suit against Extell W. 57th St. LLC and related entities following a fatal accident at a construction site. The decedent, a worker at the site, suffered a fatal fall from a ladder. The central issue was whether the defendants had failed to provide adequate safety devices as mandated by Labor Law § 240, thereby causing the accident.

In the complex litigation of Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 83 F. Supp. 2d 318 (N.D.N.Y. 2000), the court’s rigorous analysis of the admissibility and reliability of a Real Estate Valuation Expert Witness provides a definitive example of how federal courts apply Daubert standards to expert testimony in high-stakes property valuation disputes.

Background and Parties

The Cayuga Indian Nation brought suit against the State of New York and other defendants, seeking damages and equitable relief for the unlawful taking of tribal lands. The central issue was the determination of fair market value for the subject property, a vast tract of land in upstate New York. Both sides retained multiple real estate appraisal experts to establish the value of the land at issue, with the outcome hinging on the credibility and admissibility of their respective methodologies.

In the recent case of Daniel Crowder, Respondent, vs. Ingram Barge Company, LLC, Appellant, Missouri Court of Appeals 2023, the role of the Finance Expert Witness was central to the dispute over damages for impaired earning capacity following a workplace injury. This case provides a clear illustration of how courts evaluate the reliability and admissibility of expert financial testimony, and the standards applied under Missouri law.

Background and Parties

Daniel Crowder, the respondent, brought suit against Ingram Barge Company, LLC, alleging significant losses due to impaired earning capacity resulting from an incident during his employment. The central issue at trial was the quantification of Crowder’s economic losses, which required specialized financial analysis and projections. To substantiate his claims, Crowder retained Dr. Summary as a finance expert witness to testify regarding the extent and calculation of his alleged losses.

In the recent appellate decision of Duennebeil v. Paramount Financial Services, 2025 UT App 141, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the pivotal role of a Business, Financial & Marketing Expert Witness in litigation involving claims of negligence and misrepresentation by financial professionals. This case provides critical guidance on when expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care in complex investment disputes.

Background and Parties

A group of investors, including Roxanne Duennebeil and others, brought suit against Paramount Financial Services, Inc.—operating under the business name Live Abundant—its founder Douglas R. Andrew, and several licensed insurance agents. The investors alleged that the defendants introduced and recommended a real estate investment product that ultimately failed, resulting in significant financial losses. The claims included breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.