Expert’s Damages Testimony Prompts Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Exclude Under Daubert

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
March 2, 2021

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (966 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3639 Household Appliances, NEC
423620 Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers
discovery
daubert, expert testimony, discovery, economic damages & lost profits, expert report, expert qualifications, Rule 26
Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods.
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39023
US
Federal Court
Georgia
United States District Court
Paul Dopp
Hall

Summary

In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.

See Also

Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods.

Full Text of Court Cases
March 2, 2021

In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.