Mealey's Daubert
-
December 07, 2022
Louisiana Federal Judge Rules On Motions To Exclude Experts In Bad Faith Dispute
LAKE CHARLES, La. — In dueling motions to exclude, a Louisiana federal judge agreed to exclude two witnesses retained by an insurance company in a bad faith suit but found that two remaining experts are admissible because “the expected testimony will merely offer a difference of opinion,” which is not grounds for exclusion under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
-
December 05, 2022
Judge: Economic Damages Expert Can Testify In Employment Discrimination Spat
WICHITA, Kan. — A Kansas federal judge refused to exclude an expert retained by the U.S. Department of Defense to opine on economic damages suffered by a man who sued for employment discrimination, finding that the former employee failed to show that the expert did not meet the admissibility standards in Daubert.
-
December 02, 2022
Judge: Orthopedic Surgeon Can Opine On Future Surgeries In Collision Case
EL PASO, Texas — An expert retained to testify on a man’s need for future surgeries based his opinions on a factual foundation, a Texas federal judge ruled, dismissing a trucking company’s arguments that his opinions are speculative and should be excluded.
-
December 02, 2022
4th Circuit: No Error In Excluding Expert Testifying Against Motorcycle Company
RICHMOND, Va. — The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that a lower court properly excluded the “highly speculative opinion” offered by a liability expert retained by the estate of a man killed in a motorcycle accident, affirming summary judgment awarded to the company.
-
November 30, 2022
Illinois Panel: Construction Case Not Precluded By Voluntarily Dismissed Claims
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — An Illinois appellate court panel affirmed a more than $168,000 award entered in favor of two homeowners in a construction defects suit and determined that the trial court did not err in finding that the builder failed to construct the house in a workmanlike manner and that the homeowners’ suit was not barred by a previous suit filed against the builder by the homeowners.
-
November 29, 2022
Class Certified, Daubert Motion Denied In Google Play Antitrust Suit
SAN FRANCISCO — A group of consumer plaintiffs that sued Google LLC for monopolization of the Android operating system (OS) app market saw their motion for class certification partly granted Nov. 28 by a California federal judge, who certified a damages class but not an injunctive relief class.
-
November 23, 2022
Trial Testimony Leads Judge To Exclude Expert Witness In Discrimination Row
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Based on an expert’s testimony during the trial of one firefighter accusing the Charlotte Fire Department of racial discrimination, a North Carolina federal judge agreed to bar his testimony from another upcoming trial, finding that the testimony is unreliable.
-
November 23, 2022
Missouri Federal Judge Allows Experts On Mental, Economic Impact From Fatal Crash
ST. LOUIS — A Missouri federal judge denied motions to exclude three experts retained by a mother who sued a trucking company and its employees for a crash that killed her daughter, finding that the experts’ testimony is relevant under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
-
November 23, 2022
Judge Limits Expert’s Opinions On Injured Athlete’s Lost Chance Of Scholarships
ST. PAUL, Minn. — A rebuttal expert retained by a high school basketball player severely injured in a car accident cannot testify on the player’s assertion that but for the accident, he would have played collegiate basketball on a scholarship and potentially been an Olympic high jumper, a Minnesota federal judge ruled Nov. 22.
-
November 23, 2022
Homeowners Tell 9th Circuit Judge Erred By Denying Certification In Defect Case
SAN FRANCISCO — A group of homeowners unsealed their opening brief to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in which they argue that a federal judge’s refusal to certify a class accusing construction supply manufacturers of selling defective foundational anchors and ties in violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) was “peppered with legal and factual errors.”
-
November 22, 2022
Judge: ACA Section 1557 Gender Dysphoria Experts Reliable, Admissible
TACOMA, Wash. — Outside a single untimely submission, cross-challenges to experts in a gender dysphoria discrimination class suit involving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act go to the weight of the testimony, and the opinions are admissible, a federal judge in Washington said Nov. 21 in mostly denying motions to exclude.
-
November 17, 2022
Judge Adopts Magistrate’s Recommendation To Exclude Expert Over Objections
ATLANTA — A Georgia federal judge denied the objection raised by an inmate suing prison officials for violating his constitutional rights to a federal magistrate’s recommendation that the inmate’s expert be partially barred from testifying.
-
November 17, 2022
Mich. Appeals Court Reverses, Finds Expert Wrongly Admitted In Impaired Driving Case
LANSING, Mich. — A Michigan appeals court found that a circuit court and a trial court erred in admitting a police deputy's testimony as an expert drug recognition evaluator because his testing does not meet the state’s rule of evidence that incorporates the standards of reliability established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
-
November 16, 2022
GEICO Seeks To Appeal UCL Class Certification In COVID Premium Credit Suit
SAN FRANCISCO — GEICO petitioned the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for permission to appeal a “deeply problematic” ruling certifying a class of automotive policy holders who say GEICO violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) by profiting from a premium giveback program initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic, writing that certification was based on a flawed expert report that should have been excluded.
-
November 15, 2022
Medical Expert In Suit Alleging Botched Eye Surgery Can Testify, Judge Says
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A medical expert retained in a malpractice suit may not have used the “magic words,” but his testimony clearly identified a standard of care and his opinions are relevant and reliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Puerto Rico federal judge ruled in denying a motion to exclude.
-
November 15, 2022
Judge Grants Target Judgment After Denying Bid To Exclude Its Expert In Fall Suit
TAMPA, Fla. — A Florida federal judge on Nov. 14 granted summary judgment to Target Corp. after finding in a separate order that its expert is qualified to testify about a slip and fall in a store’s parking lot, denying a woman’s motion to exclude.
-
November 14, 2022
Judge Rules On 6 Motions To Limit Expert Testimony In Wage Disputes Class Action
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California resolved six motions to exclude expert testimony filed by Home Depot and a class representative suing the retailer for violating state wage and hour laws in a single order, limiting testimony on possible damages from some experts and excluding testimony from experts who offered opinions that don’t require specialized knowledge.
-
November 11, 2022
Magistrate Judge Refuses To Limit Testimony From Dueling Experts In Injury Case
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A New York federal magistrate judge denied dueling motions to exclude the other party’s expert testimony after finding that the life care planning expert retained by a woman who alleges that she was injured at a Costco store based his opinions on reliable methodology and that the new opinions in Costco’s economic expert’s supplemental report are permissible.
-
November 11, 2022
Judge Limits Hand Therapist Testimony In Inmate’s Medical Malpractice Claim
SEATTLE — Claims that a delay in securing physical therapy for a federal inmate left him with permanent injuries will continue, but a Washington federal judge partially granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment after finding that a proposed expert is unqualified to opine on the inmate’s medical negligence claims.
-
November 10, 2022
11th Circuit Affirms Exclusion Of Causation Expert In Pelvic Mesh Case
ATLANTA — The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in a pelvic mesh case, agreeing that the plaintiff’s specific-causation expert was properly excluded because of his methodology and that a second causation opinion was untimely.
-
November 10, 2022
N.M. Appeals Court: Expert Testimony Wrongfully Allowed; Conviction Reversed
SANTA FE, N.M. — A New Mexico trial court erred in allowing police officers to give expert testimony during a drug trafficking criminal case, a New Mexico appeals court found, ordering that the conviction be reversed and remanding the case for retrial (New Mexico v. Gabriel Lucero, No. A-1-CA-39210, N.M. App., 2022 N.M. App. Unpub. LEXIS 390).
-
November 07, 2022
Judge Rules On Daubert, Rule 702 Expert Challenges In ERISA Imprudence Row
LOS ANGELES — Addressing motions in which each party in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action over fees and funds argued that the other’s expert or experts used unreliable methods, a California federal judge granted exclusion as to the challenged opinions of two experts regarding alternative investment options but denied exclusion as to two experts on recordkeeping fees.
-
November 04, 2022
Florida Federal Magistrate Grants Motion To Exclude In Chinese Drywall Case
MIAMI — Testimony from experts retained by homeowners in more than a dozen related cases against Chinese drywall manufacturers is irrelevant and unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Florida magistrate judge ruled, granting a motion to exclude.
-
November 03, 2022
Trucking Company’s Expert Admitted By Florida Federal Judge In Crash Case
MIAMI — A man allegedly injured when his parked vehicle was struck by a truck driver acting in the scope of his employment failed to convince a Florida federal judge to exclude an expert retained by the trucking company who opined on the extent of the man’s injuries.
-
November 03, 2022
Magistrate: Experts On Cost, Scope Of Roof Repair Can Testify In Insurance Row
SAN ANTONIO — An insurer failed to persuade a Texas federal magistrate judge to ban two experts retained in a breach of contract suit from testifying after she found that many of its objections are not grounds for dismissal or are based on inapplicable rules.