- Terrebonne Parish NAACP et al v. Jindal et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Louisiana – October 18th, 2015 – This case involves at-large voting in a judicial district in Louisiana, possibly violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The defendants hired three experts to assist in proving their case and the plaintiffs filed motions to exclude them. The experts are Bruce L. Adelson (government expert witness), Michael Beychik (political consultant expert witness), and Ronald E. Weber (redistricting and voting rights expert witness). The court granted the motion to exclude Mr. Adelson and deferred an opinion on the motions to exclude the latter two experts.
- Stachon v. Woodward et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Indiana – October 23rd, 2015 – In this motor vehicle action, the defendant hired Michael Sutton as an accident reconstruction expert witness. The plaintiff challenged his testimony stating that his testimony was outside of his expertise, unreliable, and would not assist the trier of fact. The motion to exclude the testimony was denied.
- Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. et al – United States District Court – District of Massachusetts – October 23rd, 2015 – In this patent infringement case, the court issued three separate opinions (here, here, and here) related to motions to exclude expert witness testimony. The first and second involve, Alan Ratliff, a business evaluation expert witness. The third opinion involves Russell W. Mangum III, an economics expert witness. The court granted in part and denied in part the testimonies of both Mr. Ratliff, and Dr.. Mangum.
- Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al – United States District Court – Southern District of New York – October 23, 2015 – In this case, the defendant has made a motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Roy Lubit, a forensic psychiatry expert witness. The defendant claims that the methods Dr. Lubit used was unreliable. The court denied the motion.
- Lopez et al v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – October 26th, 2015 – In this insurance bad faith action, the defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Donald Dinsmore, an insurance expert witness. They state that Mr. Dinsmore is not qualified to testify on the defendant’s handling of PIP claims, that his testimony is unreliable, and that it won’t help the trier of fact. The judge granted the testimony in part and denied it in part.
Updated: