Plaintiff filed suit against defendant related to a personal injury claim. Defendant hired a Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness to provide testimony. Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert, which was denied by the court.
Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness Allowed to Testify in Personal Injury Litigation
Summary: Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness testimony allowed despite plaintiff’s argument that the escalator was not inspected by the expert.
Facts: This case (Cabrera v. Macy’s Florida Stores, LLC – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – November 29th, 2021) involves a personal injury claim whereas the plaintiff fell while riding an escalator at the defendant’s department store. The plaintiff claims that she fell after there was a “violent shaking and/or jerking and/or vibration.” In order to prove her case, the defendant hired Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness John Donnelly. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Donnelly.
Marine Engineering Expert Witness Testimony Partially Allowed in Vessel Litigation
Summary: Marine Engineering Expert Witness testimony allowed in part as the court opined that the expert is qualified to offer opinions in case.
Psychology Expert Witness Testimony Excluded in Juvenile Center Litigation
Summary: Psychology Expert Witness testimony was not allowed as the court opined that the expert’s opinions about the conditions in the mental health facility were not relevant.
Court Strikes Portion of Patent Expert Witness Report Based on Improper Methodology
Summary: The report of a Patent Expert Witness was limited in a copyright infringement case as to the apportionment of damages
Facts: This case (Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. – United States District Court- Northern District of California – March 13, 2012) involves a patent dispute. The plaintiff, Oracle America, alleges that the defendant, Google, used code that was copyrighted. Dr. Ian Cockburn wrote a damages report for this case which included five methods of apportionment. First, Dr. Cockburn reviewed the 2006 request for $99 million to Google. Second, he suggested adjusting the pay of the lawsuit to $557 million to match potential lost revenue. Third, he adds on another $28 million by removing a revenue-sharing cap. Fourth, he encourages the use of alternative methods including the “group and value” and “independent significance” approaches. Fifth, he downwardly adjusts because of potential extraterritorial infringement. After the damage report had been reviewed, Dr. Cockburn’s calculated patent damages stood between $18 and $56 million with the copyright lost license fee between $35 and $112 million. Google then acted to strike the report.
Discussion: The court evaluated Dr. Cockburn’s potential apportionment methods. Dr. Cockburn started with the “Group and Value” method which focuses on specific patents and copyrights with the payment from Google to Oracle equaling their importance to the function of the smartphone. Google opines that this was a biased approach because Oracle engineers gave each patent their value, though this ended up being a point for cross examination instead. Dr. Cockburn concluded that there were lower and upper bound patents with the upper bound patents carrying more weight, thus being more of value. The court took issue with the upper bound ranking and ended up striking it with the lower bound and overall group and value method being approved. Additionally, damages did not have to be apportioned on a claim-by-claim basis and Dr. Cockburn’s value distribution curve was allowed to be applied after Google refuted their use.
Forensic Accounting Expert Witness Testimony Excluded in Hotel Litigation
Summary: Forensic Accounting Expert Witness testimony not allowed as the court opined that the expert did not have first-hand knowledge of the case at hand.
Psychology Expert Witness Testimony Allowed in Employment Litigation
Summary: Psychology Expert Witness allowed to testify as the court opined that the expert has sufficient basis for his opinions.
Railroad Expert Witness Testimony Allowed in Personal Injury Claim
Summary: Railroad Expert Witness allowed to provide expert testimony as the court opined that the credibility of the expert can be determined at cross-examination.
Geology Expert Witness Testimony Excluded in Groundwater Contamination Litigation
Summary: Geology Expert Witness not allowed to provide testimony as the expert did not explain how his conclusions were more than guesses.
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness Testimony Allowed in Insurance Case
Summary: Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony in automobile accident case as the court opined that his testimony is relevant.