Expert Rebuttal Fails to Engage With Initial Valuation

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 21 No. 9
Legal and Court Case Update
September 2015

Access the Full Article

This article is 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. (1,998 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
7373 Computer Integrated Systems Design
541512 Computer Systems Design Services
economic damages & lost profits
damages, daubert, admissibility, discovery, rule 702, expert report
Clear-View Technologies, Inc. v. Rasnick (II)
2015 U.S. Dist.. LEXIS 72601
June 3, 2015
US
Federal Court
California
United States District Court
Dr. Jonathan Neuberger (plaintiff); James A. Turner (defendants/valuation), Earl McCune (defendants/technology)
Freeman

Summary

Court excludes so-called rebuttal report where expert failed to review the initial expert report but instead contradicted the opposing party’s main contention; proponent’s attempt to append report to proper rebuttal valuation testimony is “gamesmanship.”

See Also

Clear-View Technologies, Inc. v. Rasnick (II)

Full Text of Court Cases
June 3, 2015

Court excludes so-called rebuttal report where expert failed to review the initial expert report but instead contradicted the opposing party’s main contention; proponent’s attempt to append report to proper rebuttal valuation testimony is “gamesmanship.”

Clear-View Technologies, Inc. v. Rasnick (I)

Full Text of Court Cases
June 2, 2015

Court excludes so-called rebuttal report where expert failed to review the initial expert report but instead contradicted the opposing party’s main contention; proponent’s attempt to append report to proper rebuttal valuation testimony is “gamesmanship.”

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation UpdateVol. 21 No. 9
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition