Federal Court Clarifies Rule on Discovery of Draft Valuation Reports

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 13 No. 6
Legal and Court Case Update
June 2007

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. (1,263 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
tort
University of Pittsburgh v. David W. Townsend
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24620
March 30, 2007
Federal Court
Tennessee
United States District Court
Andrew R. Tillman, Christian M. Best, Daniel F. Diffley, David G. Oberdick, J. Chadwick Hatmaker, J. Patrick Elsevier, John P. Fry, Michael Yablonski, Patrick R. Riley, Randall L. Allen, Travis J. Graham
Robert Woolridge, Thomas Lewellen, Mark Gleason (plaintiff)
Shirley, Jr.

Summary

Court considers motion to exclude expert testimony for their admitted destruction of draft reports and emails and for their use of reasonable royalty methodology.

See Also

University of Pittsburgh v. David W. Townsend

Full Text of Court Cases
March 30, 2007

Court considers motion to exclude expert testimony for their admitted destruction of draft reports and emails, and for their use of reasonable royalty methodology.