Disengaged expert vulnerable to 'Daubert' attack: court discredits testimony in 'Marine Travelift

Marine Travelift, Inc. v. Marine Lift Systems, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91268 (June 28, 2013)  

A recent Daubert case featured an expert whose assignment limited him to evaluating the damages projections the plaintiff had created and testifying to their validity. He obliged and, without testing the underlying data, adopted the plaintiff's "potential lost profits" calculations. At trial, the defendant denounced him as the plaintiff's "mouthpiece" and called his opinion unreliable and inadmissible. He merely transmitted third-party information without applying his own expertise and judgment. The court agreed, detailing the expert's every failure to add analysis and perform independent research.
It's easy to see why the plaintiff wanted the expert involved: He could lend a creditable name to questionable data. But the benefit to the expert is harder to grasp considering his exposure to judicial disapprobation.