Articles Posted in Expert Witness Testimony

Summary: Electronic Discovery Expert Witness testimony not excluded even though the defendant argued that testimony on “Null Message Bodies” is not relevant because it is not evidence of user deletion.

Facts:  This case (Pajak v. Under Armour – United States District Court – Northern District of West Virginia – October 24, 2022) involves a claim of wrongful discharge.  The plaintiff, Cynthia D. Pajak, filed suit against her former employer, Under Armour, alleging that she was discharged in retaliation because she reported numerous instances of workplace behavior that she deemed inappropriate.  In addition, Pajak argues that she was a victim of gender discrimination.  To assist in her case, the plaintiff hired Electronic Discovery Expert Witness Craig Corkrean to provide expert testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Architecture Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the plaintiff argued that an opinion on substantial similarity is not needed as the test is whether the designs are similar to an ordinary observer.

Facts:  This case (Design Basics, LLC v. Forrester Wehrle Homes, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Ohio – May 23rd, 2019) involves a copyright infringement claim.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant infringed their copyrights in a number of architectural plans and used them without permission to build single-family homes in Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan.  The defendant has hired Architecture Expert Witness Richard Kraly to provide testimony in this case.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Spine Surgery Expert Witness allowed even though the plaintiff argued that the expert witness did not have the knowledge or education to testify on velocity of the collision.

Facts: This case (Miller v. Secura Supreme Insurance Company – United States District Court – District of Colorado – Jul 6th, 2023) involves an insurance claim for uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits. The defendant paid out $22,436.71 and stated to the plaintiff that they disputed the cause and the extent of the injuries claimed because he was also in an accident in 2017. The defendant requested that the plaintiff go to an independent evaluation by B. Andrew Castro, M.D.  After Dr. Castro submitted his report, the defendant continued to deny additional monies to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed suit. As part of the case, the defendant hired Dr. Castro as a Spine Surgery Expert Witness. The plaintiff then filed suit to exclude Dr. Castro’s expert witness testimony.

Continue reading

Summary:  Statistics Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony even though the defendant argued that his opinion should be excluded due to inconsistencies and errors.

Facts:  This case (Cone et al v. Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – September 17th, 2019) involves a claim of alleged manufacturing and/or marketing defects of ceramic toilet tanks made by the the defendant.  The plaintiff has hired Shawn Casper, Ph.D. (Statistics Expert Witness) to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of this witness.

Continue reading

Summary: Epidemiology Expert Witness allowed to testify in products liability case despite arguments that she changed her testimony.

Facts:  This case (Barrera, et al. v. Monsanto Company  – Superior Court of the State of Delaware – May 31st, 2019) involves a products liability claim.  The plaintiffs allege that their cancer was caused by exposure to the defendant’s herbicide product, commonly known as Roundup.  The plaintiffs have hired Epidemiology Expert Witness Dr. Beate Ritz to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Professional Engineering Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony in part even though the defendant argued that the expert’s opinions would not assist the trier of fact.

Facts:  This case (Leftridge v. Speedway LLC – United States District Court – Northern District of Indiana – October 10th, 2019) involves a slip and fall claim.  The plaintiff Tayell Leftridge alleges that the defendant Speedway should be liable for injuries that she suffered when she slipped and fell on a wet floor at one of defendant’s stores in Hobart, Indiana.  The plaintiff has hired H. Richard Hicks (Professional Engineering Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Securities Expert Witness testimony is allowed as the judge determined that “Ponzi schemes” is an allowed topic for expert witness testimony.

Facts:  This case (Hafen v. Howell et al – United States District Court – District of Utah – February 23, 2023) involves a Receiver’s action against the defendants to recover assets obtained from an alleged Ponzi scheme related to rare coins.  In order to support a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff hired Securities Expert Witness Jonathan O’ Hafen to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant’s have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Medical Devices Expert Witness testimony is granted in part and denied in part as the judge ruled that the expert was qualified to offer an opinion on the alleged inadequacy of the Injectafer label.

Facts:  This case (CROCKETT v. LUITPOLD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Pennsylvania – February 23, 2023) involves a drug product liability claim.  The plaintiff, Katherine Crockett, claims that she sustained injuries after she was given Injectafer, an iron-replacement medication.  Crockett says that she developed hypophosphatemia after being given the drug.  The plaintiff hired Medical Devices Expert Witness George Samaras, Ph.D. to provide expert witness testimony to assist in her case.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Human Resources Expert Witness testimony allowed in part because the court determined that the expert’s testimony had a reasonable factual basis.

Facts – This case (Shampine v. U.S. Foods, Inc. – United States District Court – Eastern District of Tennessee – November 21, 2022) involves an employment claim.  The plaintiff, Thomas Shampine, claims that the defendant, U.S. Foods, fired him due to his disability and age.  He alleges that U.S. Foods was aware that he had Parkinson’s Disease and they should had given him advanced notice of a complaint by an another employee and other issues.  In addition, the plaintiff accuses the defendant of disparate treatment of heterosexual, Caucasian male employees.  The defendant hired Human Resources Expert Witness Ginger McRae to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Employment Expert Witness testimony partially allowed even though the court ruled that the expert was qualified to offer an opinion on reduction in force because of her experience in human resources.

Facts:  This case (Self v. Perspecta Enterprise Solutions, LLC et al – United States District Court – Southern District of California – February 15, 2023) involves a claim of discrimination and wrongful termination.  The plaintiff, Kathleen Self, alleges that she was terminated by the defendant based on her gender and in retaliation for complaining about her manager,.  The defendant claims that the plaintiff was terminated due to a reduction in force at the company.  To help her with her claim, the plaintiff hired Employment Expert Witness Debra Reilly, J.D. to provide expert witness testimony on her behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading