Expert Witness Blog

In the high-profile prosecution of Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, the role and admissibility of Fraud Investigation Expert Witness testimony became a focal point in the Ninth Circuit’s review of their convictions for securities fraud and related offenses. The case, stemming from the collapse of Theranos, Inc., addressed not only the substance of the fraud allegations but also the critical evidentiary standards governing expert witness testimony in complex financial trials. The appellate decision is found at USA v. Holmes, No. 23-1167 (9th Cir. 2025).

Background and Parties

Elizabeth Holmes, founder and CEO of Theranos, and Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, the company’s president, were charged with multiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The government alleged that Holmes and Balwani made false statements to investors and patients about the capabilities and reliability of Theranos’s blood-testing technology, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in investments and significant public harm.

In recent years, litigation involving funeral home operations and estate administration has increasingly relied on the specialized knowledge of a Funerals & Funeral Homes Expert Witness to clarify industry standards, assess compliance, and evaluate the conduct of funeral service providers. These experts play a pivotal role in cases where the handling of remains, execution of funeral contracts, or adherence to statutory requirements is contested.

A notable example is the case of Johnson v. Mayers, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Alabama in 2025. This matter arose from the probate of Samuel D. Johnson’s will, which contained specific instructions regarding the disposition of his estate and, by implication, the handling of his funeral arrangements. The parties included Timothy Brian Johnson and Phillip Barnes, nephews of the deceased, who contested the administration of the estate, and Judith Mayers, the sole surviving named beneficiary and appointed administrator. The dispute centered on the interpretation of survivorship language in the will and the application of Alabama’s antilapse statute, with broader implications for the responsibilities of funeral homes in executing testamentary instructionsJohnson v. Mayers, Supreme Court of Alabama 2025.

In this litigation, the Funerals & Funeral Homes Expert Witness was retained to provide authoritative testimony on industry protocols for honoring testamentary directives related to funeral services and the transfer of remains. The expert’s analysis encompassed:

In high-stakes real estate litigation, the testimony of a Hotel Appraisal Expert Witness is often decisive in establishing property value and quantifying damages. The case of Pat Rose Associates v. Coombe, California Court of Appeal 1990 exemplifies the critical role such expert witnesses play in complex hotel valuation disputes.

Pat Rose Associates (PRA), a limited partnership, initiated suit against D. Wesley Coombe and Mervyn G. Flory, key officers of Kingsway Services, Inc., following a series of transactions involving the Sands Hotel in Palm Springs. PRA alleged fraud in the sale of the hotel and breach of a hotel lease, seeking substantial compensatory and punitive damages. The litigation arose after PRA purchased the hotel from Kingsway, only to discover material misrepresentations and failures related to the lease and the hotel’s financial condition.

The factual matrix revolved around the December 1979 acquisition of the Sands Hotel by Kingsway for $3.2 million, financed in part by a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. PRA subsequently acquired the hotel, relying on representations regarding the lease and the property’s value. When the lease terms and the hotel’s financial performance failed to meet expectations, PRA claimed it had been defrauded and suffered significant economic harm.

In Harris v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., 92 F.4th 286 (5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit issued a major Daubert ruling on Human Resources Expert Witness testimony, slashing one of the largest employment-discrimination verdicts in recent history. The case provides authoritative guidance on the boundaries of admissible HR expert opinion in Title VII litigation.

Background and Parties

Plaintiff Jennifer Harris, a Black sales executive, brought claims of race discrimination and retaliation against FedEx Corporate Services under Title VII. Harris alleged that FedEx subjected her to a hostile work environment, denied her promotion opportunities, and ultimately retaliated against her for raising discrimination concerns. After trial in the Southern District of Texas, the jury returned a verdict awarding Harris approximately $366 million in damages.

A recent case exemplifying the pivotal role of the International Business Expert Witness in federal litigation is Venequip, S.A. v. Caterpillar Inc., adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This matter centered on the intersection of international commercial agreements, foreign legal proceedings, and the scope of U.S. judicial assistance in cross-border discovery requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The court’s analysis and ultimate decision underscore the critical influence of expert testimony in navigating the complexities of international business disputes, particularly where foreign law, business practices, and contractual obligations are at issue.

Background and Parties

Venequip, S.A., a Venezuelan supplier of heavy equipment, maintained a longstanding dealership relationship with Caterpillar Sàrl, the Swiss subsidiary of Illinois-based Caterpillar Inc. The parties’ sales and service agreements contained forum selection and choice-of-law clauses mandating that all disputes be resolved in Swiss courts under Swiss law. In 2019, Caterpillar Sàrl terminated Venequip’s dealership, prompting Venequip to initiate contract litigation in Geneva, Switzerland. To support its claims in the Swiss proceeding, Venequip sought expansive discovery from Caterpillar Inc. and its affiliates in the United States, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which authorizes U.S. district courts to order discovery for use in foreign tribunals.

A recent appellate decision highlights the pivotal role of the Latches & Fasteners Expert Witness in product liability litigation and the rigorous standards courts apply to such testimony. In the case of Pedro Fidalgo & others v. Columbus McKinnon Corp., 56 Mass. App. Ct. 176 (2002), the Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed the admissibility and sufficiency of expert evidence in a workplace accident involving a foundry hook.

Background and Facts

Pedro Fidalgo, an employee at a Massachusetts foundry, suffered catastrophic injuries while operating a suspended lifting device equipped with a foundry hook manufactured by Columbus McKinnon Corporation. The plaintiffs alleged that the hook was defectively designed because it lacked a latch, which allowed it to slip off a trunnion post during use, causing the accident. They further asserted that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the dangers of using the hook in suspended lifting operations.

In a recent federal patent litigation, the role of the Licensing Expert Witness proved pivotal in determining the admissibility and weight of damages testimony. The case, Jackson v. NuVasive, Inc., D. Del. 2024, centered on allegations of patent infringement involving complex medical device technology and the calculation of reasonable royalty damages.

Background and Parties

The plaintiff, Jackson, asserted that NuVasive, Inc. infringed several patents related to spinal implant systems. The dispute focused not only on the technical merits of infringement but also on the appropriate measure of damages, specifically the reasonable royalty that would have been negotiated in a hypothetical licensing scenario.

In a recent federal product liability action, the role of a Lifts Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis of expert admissibility under Rule 702 and Daubert. In Wolff v. Tomahawk Manufacturing, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon addressed the admissibility of multiple expert witnesses, including those proffered to opine on the design, safety, and operation of industrial lifts and related equipment. The court’s detailed opinion provides a clear example of how courts rigorously evaluate the reliability and relevance of technical expert testimony in lift-related litigation Wolff v. Tomahawk Manufacturing, No. 3:2021cv00880 (D. Or. 2025).

Background and Parties

The plaintiff, Elisabeth Wolff, brought suit against Tomahawk Manufacturing, alleging that a defect in the defendant’s lift equipment caused her serious injury during operation. Wolff claimed that the lift’s design and safety mechanisms were inadequate, resulting in a preventable accident. Tomahawk Manufacturing denied liability, asserting that the equipment met all applicable safety standards and that any alleged defect did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries.

In the complex world of high-value art collateral and litigation funding, the testimony of a Litigation Finance Expert Witness can be pivotal in resolving disputes over the valuation, risk, and structure of litigation finance agreements. The recent case of Athena Art Finance Corp. v. that Certain Artwork By Jean-Michel Basquiat, S.D.N.Y. 2023 provides a compelling example of how courts evaluate and rely upon such expert testimony.

Background and Parties

This case arose from a dispute involving the ownership and financial interests in a valuable artwork by Jean-Michel Basquiat. Athena Art Finance Corp. (“Athena”), a specialty lender in the art finance sector, provided a loan secured by the artwork. The litigation centered on competing claims to the artwork and the proceeds from its potential sale, implicating complex questions of priority, valuation, and the structure of litigation funding agreements.

In a landmark prosecution involving the international shipping industry, the role of the Logistics/Freight Forwarding Expert Witness proved pivotal in clarifying industry standards and fiduciary duties, ultimately influencing the jury’s verdict in a complex fraud scheme. The case, United States v. Armand Ventura, 724 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1983), centered on allegations of conspiracy and wire fraud in connection with the arrangement of ocean freight for a major international development project.

Background and Parties

The United States charged Armand Ventura and his company, CEC, with conspiracy to defraud the United States Agency for International Development (AID) and the World Bank, as well as multiple counts of wire fraud. The case arose from CEC’s role as a freight forwarder for Foster Wheeler, a contractor responsible for shipping large project cargo—specifically, a rock crusher and appliances—to Bangladesh. The government alleged that Ventura and CEC manipulated the freight arrangement to create an undisclosed profit margin at the expense of the project’s sponsors.