U.S. District Court Allows Nonduplicative Testimony of Experts and Allows Testimony on Clarification of New FRE 702

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
December 18, 2023

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. (513 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
6733 Trusts, Except Educational, Religious, and Charitable
523991 Trust, Fiduciary, and Custody Activities
shareholder dissent/oppression
expert testimony, rule 702, motion to exclude, employee stock ownership plan (ESOP)
Julie A. Su v. Reliance Trust Co.
2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226214; 2023 WL 8715627
US
Federal Court
Arizona
United States District Court
Paul Wazzan
Roslyn O. Silver

Summary

In this ESOP-related case, the court ruled that two experts of a former defendant can testify for the remaining defendants to the extent their testimony was not duplicative. The defendant’s motion to exclude testimony of the government’s (plaintiff’s) witness because the new FRE 702 rules were not followed was denied, as the court explained the new FRE 702 had not been violated.

See Also

Julie A. Su v. Reliance Trust Co.

Full Text of Court Cases
December 18, 2023

In this ESOP-related case, the court ruled that two experts of a former defendant can testify for the remaining defendants to the extent their testimony was not duplicative. The defendant’s motion to exclude testimony of the government’s (plaintiff’s) witness because the new FRE 702 rules were not followed was denied, as the court explained the new FRE 702 had not been violated.