Expand the following panels for additional search options.

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.

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.

IceMOS Tech. Corp. v. Omron Corp.

In contract dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motions, finding plaintiff’s experts are qualified based on extensive experience in relevant industry; experts could provide testimony relevant to surviving lost development support costs claim and their testimony is not unreliable as of now.

Plaintiff’s Projections Fail to Meet New York Test for Lost Profits or Lost Business Value

A breach of contract case in which the plaintiff asked for various types of economic damages is noteworthy for the court s extended discussion of what the plaintiff must show under New York law to make a case for lost profits. The court explained that the hurdle was particularly high for a new business or a business trying to break into a new market considering the company s lack of a financial track record. Damages must be ...

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.

Expert Testimony Offered at Class-Certification Stage Survives Daubert Challenge

In class-certification context, court says plaintiff’s damages expert meets Rule 702/Daubert requirements as they apply in early stage of litigation; expert is qualified, and, damages model, even if not fully developed, provides a sufficiently reliable way to calculate damages on classwide basis.

Cline v. Sunoco

In class-certification context, court says plaintiff’s damages expert meets Rule 702/Daubert requirements as they apply in early stage of litigation; expert is qualified, and, damages model, even if not fully developed, provides a sufficiently reliable way to calculate damages on classwide basis.

Colvin v. Syrian Arab Republic

In wrongful death suit arising from extrajudicial killing of famed war correspondent, court credits plaintiff expert’s “reasonable estimate” of loss of prospective income and benefits but finds expert failed to offset amount by consumption costs; court asks for updated expert report.

Court Awards Loss of Income Damages Related to Acclaimed War Correspondent’s Killing

In wrongful death suit arising from extrajudicial killing of famed war correspondent, court credits plaintiff expert’s “reasonable estimate” of loss of prospective income and benefits but finds expert failed to offset amount by consumption costs; court asks for updated expert report.

Ferraro v. Convercent, Inc.

In contract and tort case, court declines to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert, noting court’s gatekeeping function “is not a role that emphasizes exclusion of expert testimony”; expert’s background in economics and business valuation experience qualified him to value subject company.

Court Says Daubert’s ‘Gatekeeper’ Role Favors Inclusion, Not Exclusion

In contract and tort case, court declines to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert, noting court’s gatekeeping function “is not a role that emphasizes exclusion of expert testimony”; expert’s background in economics and business valuation experience qualified him to value subject company.

Calculation engagement value holds up in Alabama divorce litigation

Many valuators are adamantly opposed to doing calculation engagements, as we recently reported.

Lack of Facts and Data Render Expert’s Fair Value Balance Sheet Not Helpful

Bankruptcy Court excludes as unreliable and irrelevant expert’s solvency opinion and balance sheet; court says expert lacked the facts and data necessary to enact his chosen method and “failed in numerous ways” to reliably apply the facts and data in accordance with the selected method.

Weinman v. Crowley (In re Blair)

Bankruptcy Court excludes as unreliable and irrelevant expert’s solvency opinion and balance sheet; court says expert lacked the facts and data necessary to enact his chosen method and “failed in numerous ways” to reliably apply the facts and data in accordance with the selected method.

Appeals Court Validates Trial Court’s Reliance on Calculation of Value

Appeals court rejects claim that expert’s value determination pursuant to a calculation engagement rather than a valuation engagement was unreliable; trial court properly considered limitations inherent in a calculation engagement when crediting expert’s value estimate, appeals court says.

Rohling v. Rohling

Appeals court rejects claim that expert’s value determination pursuant to a calculation engagement rather than a valuation engagement was unreliable; trial court properly considered limitations inherent in a calculation engagement when crediting expert’s value estimate, appeals court says.

ESOP case alive (for now), but court limits damages testimony under Daubert

In a developing ESOP case, the government recently suffered a setback when the court agreed with the trustee that portions of the damages testimony the government’s expert proposed failed to hold up under the Daubert reliability prong.

Expert Qualified to Offer Unit Valuation of Telecom Property

In tax assessment case, court finds valuation expert qualified under Rule 702 despite lacking an appraiser’s license; court says rule specifically contemplates expert opinion on property valuation by nonappraisers if witness is qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”

Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue

In tax assessment case, court finds valuation expert qualified under Rule 702 despite lacking an appraiser’s license; court says rule specifically contemplates expert opinion on property valuation by nonappraisers if witness is qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”

Trustee Succeeds in Curtailing DOL Expert Testimony Under Daubert

In ESOP dispute, court partially excludes DOL expert’s damages analysis under Daubert; court finds expert’s market comparable approach to support overpayment claim is unreliable as is expert’s methodology for calculating alleged loss in stock value to existing shareholders.

Acosta v. Vinoskey

In ESOP dispute, court partially excludes DOL expert’s damages analysis under Daubert; court finds expert’s market comparable approach to support overpayment claim is unreliable as is expert’s methodology for calculating alleged loss in stock value to existing shareholders.

24 results