Articles Posted in Daubert

by

Summary: Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness allowed to testify despite the defendant’s assertion that he did not explain how he reached his conclusions about pre-injury earning capacity.

Facts:  This case (Kinnerson v. Arena Offshore L P et al – United States District Court – Western District of Louisiana – June 21st, 2019) involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiff alleges that he sustained injuries while being transferred by a crane in a personal basket and that the basket violently struck a railing.  The plaintiff has hired Glenn Hebert, a Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Securities Expert Witness was not allowed to testify in a broker-dealer case as the court determined that the expert is not qualified to offer an opinion on broker-dealer’s systems.

Facts:  This case (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lek Securities Corporation et al – United States District Court – April 8th, 2019) involves securities.  The plaintiff sued the defendant alleging that traders engaged in two schemes to manipulate the securities markets and that they did so through trading at a broker-dealer based in New York.  The plaintiff brought claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  The defendants have hired Securities Expert Witness Roger Begelman to provide testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness testimony excluded as the expert did not have experience regarding plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

Facts:  This case (Bermudez v. City of New York – United States District Court – Eastern District of New York – December 21st, 2018) involves the alleged excessive use of force related to the arrest of the plaintiff.  The plaintiff has hired Dr. Ali Guy, M.D. (Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. Guy.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Economics Expert Witness testimony is not allowed because the plaintiff did not show that the expert’s adoption of the ADT Model and Mangum’s Representative Industry Model was reliable.

Facts: This case (ADT LLC, et al. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc., et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – May 19th, 2023) involves numerous claims: unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, common law unfair competition, trade slander/commercial disparagement, and tortious interference with advantageous business relationships. The plaintiff, ADT, alleges that the defendant, Vivint Smart Home misled ADT customers through false sales tactics, such as switching out ADT equipment for Vivint and by telling the customer that ADT has been bought out and vivid is taking over their accounts. The plaintiffs hired Economics Expert Witness Dr. Eric Matolo to provide testimony their behalf.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from providing an expert witness opinion.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Corporate Governance Expert Witness testimony not allowed because the court found that his expert report used factual narrative that did not have any technical or scientific conclusions.

Facts: This case (Jones et al v. Bain Capital Private Equity et al – United States District Court – Western District of Tennessee – January 9th, 2024) involves a class action complaint filed by members of the defendant’s cheerleading camps.  The plaintiffs allege that they paid artificially inflated prices for certain goods and services, such as enrollment in cheer competitions and apparel which was purchased indirectly from the plaintiff.  To assist in their case, the plaintiffs hired Corporate Governance Expert Witness James H. Aronoff to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Aronoff.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Mortgage Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendant argued that he was not qualified to offer an opinion because he has never worked for a mortgage servicer or servicing regulator.

Facts:  This case (United States ex rel. Mitchell v. CIT Bank, N.A. – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – April 26, 2022) involves a claim under the False Claims Act (FCA).  The Relator, Andrew Mitchell, through the plaintiff, The United States, alleges that the defendant, One West Bank, submitted false claims to the Government in order to obtain payment under three Government loan-modification programs.  Mitchel alleges that One West Bank certified to numerous Government agencies that it was in compliance with specific laws and regulations, despite it knowing that it was not.  One West Bank’s false certifications caused the government to make payments to the bank that it wouldn’t have made.  In order to assist in his case, Mitchell hired Mortgage Expert Witness Nelson Locke, Esq. to provide expert testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Architecture Expert Witness testimony is allowed despite the fact that the defendant argued that his opinion was based on inaccurate data because he did not examine the display boxes at issue in this case.

Facts:  This case (Ellen Boccio v. Costco Wholesale Corporation – United States District Court – Southern District of New York – March 30th, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  Plaintiff Boccio alleges that she was in the Defendant’s store and when she approached the section of Christmas cards on display, several of the boxed which stored the Christmas cards fell on her , which caused her to fall on her back and buttocks to the ground.  As a result, Boccio claims that she broke her lumbar vertebra.  Boccio then filed a lawsuit claiming negligence towards Costco.  In order to prove her case, Boccio hired Architecture Expert Witnesses Frederick G. Bremer to provide expert witness testimony.  Costco filed a motion to preclude Bremer from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Aerospace Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify in part despite defendants’ argument that he does not have knowledge of the actual regulations that were violated.

Facts: This case (Aircraft Holding Solutions LLC et al v. Learjet Inc et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – July 29, 2022) involves a claim of damages to a Bombardier Challenger 300 during routine maintenance.  The plaintiffs filed this action after the airplane fell from it’s jacks.  The plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to damages for the value of the aircraft and other damages as a result of the defendant’s negligence.  The plaintiffs hired Aerospace Engineering Expert Witness Pat Duggins to provide expert testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness allowed to testify as the court ruled that his expert opinion was reliable as he reconstructed the accident based on the truck driver.

Facts:  This case (Irwin Tripp v. Walmart, Inc et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – November 16, 2022) involves a personal injury lawsuit.  The plaintiff, Irwin Tripp, was injured when a terminal tractor hit him and dragged him after unloading goods.  The plaintiff sustained horrible injuries, losing both his legs in the accident.  The defendant hired Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness Donald J. Fournier to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify even though the defendant argued that his expert opinion should be excluded because he did not conduct an accident reconstruction report.

Facts:  This case (Hix-Hernandez v. Ford Motor Co. – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – July 25, 2022) involves a products-liability claim against Ford Motor Company.  The plaintiff, Staci Hix-Hernandez, claims that she was injured when a battery dislodged from an Ford F-150 truck after it collided with a tractor-trailer.  Hix Hernandez says that the battery became airborne and crashed through her windshield and hit her in the face.  She states that she sustained numerous injuries due to the accident including facial fractures, chemical burns to her face, as well as physical and emotional trauma.  Hix-Hernandez filed suit against Ford Motor, claiming that the battery was defectively secured in the compartment of the F-150 and that the design of the battery restraint in the F-150 was flawed.  Hix-Hernandez hired Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness Jahan Rasty, Ph.D to provide expert witness testimony in this case.  Ford has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading