Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Tennessee Divorce Value for Plastic Surgeon Raises Some Disturbing Questions

In this Tennessee appellate divorce decision, the court affirmed the valuation of the husband’s plastic surgeon practice from the trial court.

Discovery dispute over damages expert’s undisclosed work paper

In a discovery dispute, a federal court recently found the defendant had no duty to disclose to the opposing side its expert’s “intermediary” working paper that he used to prepare his damages calculation.

Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods.

In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.

Expert’s Damages Testimony Prompts Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Exclude Under Daubert

In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.

Court Finds Delayed Disclosure of Expert’s Complete Report ‘Substantially Justified’

Court denies defendants’ Rule 37 motion to exclude opposing expert’s report and testimony; court notes reason for expert report’s ...

Wright v. Old Gringo, Inc.

Court denies defendants’ Rule 37 motion to exclude opposing expert’s report and testimony; court notes reason for expert report’s lateness was defendants’ litigation strategy, including efforts to thwart production of financial information vital for valuation of company and damages calculation.

Parties fight over notes-containing expert report: draft or final version?

Several sessions at the recent AICPA conference in Las Vegas highlighted the importance of expert discovery in litigation and noted that draft reports continue to be a hot-button issue.

Helen Ziegler Benjamin v. Island Management

In a family dispute featuring related closely held companies and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and mismanagement, court, based on financial testimony from plaintiffs’ expert, orders inspection of defendant company’s records, including general ledger, fee agreements, and executive compensation.

Financial Expert Testimony Persuades Court to Order Inspection of Company Records

In a family dispute featuring related closely held companies and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and mismanagement, court, based on financial testimony from plaintiffs’ expert, orders inspection of defendant company’s records, including general ledger, fee agreements, and executive compensation.

County of Maricopa v. Office Depot Inc.

In denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 37, which specifies sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, court finds note-containing version of expert report is a draft not subject to discovery under Rule 26.

Expert Report Containing Notes Qualifies as Draft Not Subject to Discovery

In denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 37, which specifies sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, court finds note-containing version of expert report is a draft not subject to discovery under Rule 26.

Galasso v. Cobleskill Stone Products

New York appellate division upholds the trial court’s order to disclose a valuation report, finding the appraisal was relevant to the litigation and done for estate tax purposes and therefore was not “of a legal character”; the attorney-client privilege does not apply, court says.

Court Explains Why Valuation Report Is Discoverable

New York appellate division upholds the trial court’s order to disclose a valuation report, finding the appraisal was relevant to the litigation and done for estate tax purposes and therefore was not “of a legal character”; the attorney-client privilege does not apply, court says.

In ESOP Dispute, Court Orders Disclosure of Communications Involving Independent Financial Advisor

In ESOP discovery dispute, court orders disclosure of documents involving company’s independent financial advisor; there is no attorney-client privilege where parties’ engagement agreement expressly designated advisor as an “independent contractor with no fiduciary or agency to the Company.”

Acosta v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (HCMC)

In ESOP discovery dispute, court orders disclosure of documents involving company’s independent financial advisor; there is no attorney-client privilege where parties’ engagement agreement expressly designated advisor as an “independent contractor with no fiduciary or agency to the Company.”

In ESOP Discovery Dispute, Court Affirms Protection of Expert Drafts Under Rule 26

In ESOP case, court, citing Rule 26 of federal rules of civil procedure, denies defendant trustee’s motion to compel disclosure of information related to DOL expert’s prior work in valuation industry and expert’s other work for DOL on ESOP-related matters.

Acosta v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (II) (Graphite)

In ESOP case, court, citing Rule 26 of federal rules of civil procedure, denies defendant trustee’s motion to compel disclosure of information related to DOL expert’s prior work in valuation industry and expert’s other work for DOL on ESOP-related matters.

Noven Pharmaceuticals v Novartis Pharmaceuticals

In breach of contract action, court finds defendant’s valuation report is discoverable; report is relevant to an issue in dispute and not protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine where valuation was not done solely in anticipation of litigation but had mixed purpose.

Court Finds Defendant’s Valuation Had ‘Mixed Purpose’ and Orders Disclosure

In breach of contract action, court finds defendant’s valuation report is discoverable; report is relevant to an issue in dispute and not protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine where valuation was not done solely in anticipation of litigation but had mixed purpose.

19 results