1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  1. Dillon v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company – United States District Court – District of Colorado – October 21st, 2015 – In this case involving an automobile accident, the plaintiff filed suit against defendant’s insurance company.  The defendant seeks to exclude the testimony of Neuropsychology expert witness Janet Lemon, Phd on causation grounds.  The judge denied the motion to exclude.
  2. Lion Oil Company v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA et al – United States District Court – District Court of Arkansas – October 20th, 2015 – The defendants in this case seek to exclude the testimony of: Kevin O’Toole (forensic accounting expert witness), William Byrd (pipelines expert witness), and  Dr. Ashok Saxena (mechanical engineering expert witness).  The court denied the motion to exclude the testimony of Kevin O’Toole, denied Mr. Byrd from using the undisclosed parts of this testimony, and denied as moot the testimony of Dr, Saxena.
  3. Cave et al v. Saxon Mortgage Services Inc, et al – United States District Court – District of Pennsylvania – October 20th, 2015 – This is a contract case related to mortgages and consumer lending.  The plaintiffs seek to exclude the expert witness testimony of Marsha J. Courchane, Ph.D, a mortgages expert witness stating that she improperly offered a legal opinion.  The court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part.

  • Century Indemnity Company v. The Marine Group, LLC et alUnited States District Court – District of Oregon – October 13th, 2015 – In this environmental cleanup case, the testimony of insurance expert witnesses Robert Hughes and Dennis Connolly were challenged on grounds of inadmissible legal conclusions and qualifications.  The court granted the motion regarding the legal conclusions, but denied the motion regarding qualifications.
  • Scott Bridge Company, Inc. v. Gresham Smith and PartnersUnited States District Court – Middle District of Alabama – October 14th, 2015 – In this negligence action involving the design and construction of a deep water pier, the testimony of three experts were challenged. These experts include: Dane Floyd (forensic accounting expert witness), Ben D. Nolan, III (mechanical engineering expert witnesses), Dr. Ted Thomson (structural engineering expert witnesses), and Dr. Richard Hartman.
  • Aubrey et al v. Barlin et al – United States District CourtWestern District of Texas – October 14th, 2015 – This case involves an alleged Ponzi scheme related to land developments.  The plaintiffs called Edmond Martin as a forensic accounting expert witness.  The defendants challenged on the grounds of qualification, reliability, and that his testimony would not help the jury.  The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

Here are some recent challenges to expert witness testimony in federal and state courts: