MDG International v. Australian Gold, Inc.

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
June 29, 2009

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (4,774 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
2844 Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet Preparations
325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
contract
MDG International v. Australian Gold, Inc.
2009 WL 1916728 (S.D. Ind.)
US
Federal Court
Indiana
United States District Court
Peter Jon Prettyman
James Whalen
Barker

Summary

Court excludes an otherwise “supremely qualified” expert for flaws in his experience and his expert report, including accepting attorney-provided data without independent verification.
MDG International v. Australian Gold, Inc.
PDF, Size: 73 KB

See Also

Courts Finds ‘Numerous’ Reasons to Exclude an Otherwise Qualified Expert

Legal and Court Case Update
September 2009

Court excludes an otherwise “supremely qualified” expert for flaws in his experience and his expert report, including accepting attorney-provided data without independent verification.

This article also appears in:
Daubert Challenges: The Courts Raise the Bar