Expand the following panels for additional search options.

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.

Expert notes are subject to discovery, 11th Circuit says

We recently reported on a case in which annotated expert draft reports were subject to discovery notwithstanding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4). Valuation professionals who frequently work on federal cases also need to know that Rule 26 does not protect expert notes and nonattorney communication, as an important 11th Circuit ruling explains.

Georgia-Pacific Analysis Satisfies Apportionment Requirement, Court Says

Court says under federal discovery rule applicable to expert testimony annotated draft expert reports are discoverable as to comments one expert made to other expert’s draft report and as to portion of the draft to which comment was made.

Marked-up draft expert reports may be discoverable

Federal discovery rule 26 expressly protects draft expert reports from discovery. But experts testifying in federal court know that this protection is by no means absolute. Questions as to the scope of protection persist, and a recent discovery ruling in a patent infringement case makes clear that concern over the strength of protection is warranted.

Compromised Section 1031 appraisal sinks Exelon tax strategy for fossil fuel power plant sale

U.S. Tax Court Judge David Laro frequently has cautioned experts not to give in to hiring attorneys who want to shape the appraisal. Although federal and state discovery rules offer some protection for attorney-expert communication, there is a risk of exposure and with it a risk of damage to the expert’s work product and reputation. A recent Section 1031 case, which Judge Laro handled, illustrates what happens when the communication is discovered.

Court Clarifies Rule 26 Protection for ‘Reporting’ and ‘Non-reporting’ Experts

Court says background information in expert’s report is what Rule 26 has in mind in requiring statement of “the facts or data considered by the witness” in forming his opinion; court clarifies discovery rules to communication with nonreporting expert.

Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co.

Court says background information in expert’s report is what Rule 26 has in mind in requiring statement of “the facts or data considered by the witness” in forming his opinion; court clarifies discovery rules to communication with nonreporting expert.

Court Clarifies Rule 26 Protection for ‘Reporting’ and ‘Non-Reporting’ Experts

Court says background information in expert’s report is what Rule 26 has in mind in requiring statement of “the facts or data considered by the witness” in forming his opinion; court clarifies discovery rules to communication with nonreporting expert.

Bombardier Rec. Prods. v. Arctic Cat Inc.

Court says under federal discovery rule applicable to expert testimony annotated draft expert reports are discoverable as to comments one expert made to other expert’s draft report and as to portion of the draft to which comment was made.

Georgia-Pacific Analysis Satisfies Apportionment Requirement, Court Says

Court says under federal discovery rule applicable to expert testimony annotated draft expert reports are discoverable as to comments one expert made to other expert’s draft report and as to portion of the draft to which comment was made.

Practice tips for valuation experts from tax court insiders

Judge Laro reminded experts to guard against domineering attorneys who insist on reviewing draft opinions and seek to nudge an expert into achieving a predetermined result. Valuation experts need to know the discovery rules (Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) rather than assume that all of the attorney-expert communication is protected.

Expert Rebuttal Fails to Engage With Initial Valuation

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.”

Admissibility Does Not Depend on Personal Knowledge of Facts

Appeals court says expert’s lack of personal knowledge of information undergirding lost profits calculation does not disqualify his opinion, as long as he can show experts in his field would rely on this information and it is otherwise reasonably reliable ...

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

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)

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.”

Delaware Chancery Orders Disclosure of Nonexpert Internal Valuations

In discovery dispute over prelitigation valuation-related information, Chancery orders dissenting shareholders to disclose internal assessments of stock value finding information likely is admissible reflecting “real-world” opinion of “astute” investors.

Am. Eagle Waste Indust., LLC v. St. Louis County

Appeals court says expert’s lack of personal knowledge of information undergirding lost profits calculation does not disqualify his opinion, as long as he can show experts in his field would rely on this information and it is otherwise reasonably reliable ...

In re Dole Food Co. (Dole I)

In discovery dispute over prelitigation valuation-related information, Chancery orders dissenting shareholders to disclose internal assessments of stock value finding information likely is admissible reflecting “real-world” opinion of “astute” investors.

Hanusin v. Hanusin

In a divorce case involving a closely held corporation, the appeals court finds trial court was justified to credit a 2004 stock purchase agreement instead of a 2012 settlement when valuing husband’s shares; the buyout was a true arms-length transaction ...

Salumbides v. Salumbides

Divorce court values medical practice based solely on accounts receivable, largely due to lack of evidence and cooperation from owner-spouse.

Mary Ann Linsell v. Applied Handling, Inc.

The Michigan Court of Appeals determined that a financial expert should not be excluded as a discovery sanction when the failure to provide supplemental responses to interrogatories from an expert are occasioned by a delay in providing necessary information.

26 - 50 of 64 results