U.S. Appellate Court Affirms Witness’s Exclusion—Cites New Rule 702 but Follows Abrogated Precedent Instead
The district court in this case excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert witness in this medical malpractice case, citing Rule 702, resulting in a summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the district court, citing Rule 702 in affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ witness. Even though the 2023 amended Rule 702 was cited, the circuit court reverted back to the pre-amended Rule 702 to bolster its exclusion of the witness.
Rodriguez v. Hosp. San Cristobal, Inc.
The district court in this case excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert witness in this medical malpractice case, citing Rule 702, resulting in a summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the district court, citing Rule 702 in affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ witness. Even though the 2023 amended Rule 702 was cited, the circuit court reverted back to the pre-amended Rule 702 to bolster its exclusion of the witness.
Julie A. Su v. Reliance Trust Co.
In this ESOP-related case, the court ruled that two experts of a former defendant can testify for the remaining defendants to the extent their testimony was not duplicative. The defendant’s motion to exclude testimony of the government’s (plaintiff’s) witness because the new FRE 702 rules were not followed was denied, as the court explained the new FRE 702 had not been violated.
U.S. District Court Allows Nonduplicative Testimony of Experts and Allows Testimony on Clarification of New FRE 702
In this ESOP-related case, the court ruled that two experts of a former defendant can testify for the remaining defendants to the extent their testimony was not duplicative. The defendant’s motion to exclude testimony of the government’s (plaintiff’s) witness because the new FRE 702 rules were not followed was denied, as the court explained the new FRE 702 had not been violated.
Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. & Mes Inc. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
In this patent infringement and validity matter, the defendants have moved for exclusion of the plaintiffs’ technical expert, who was proffered to testify as to infringement and invalidity of five patents-in-suit. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion, which included five assertions as to why the testimony should be excluded.
Patent Infringement Suit Motion to Exclude Expert Witness
In this patent infringement and validity matter, the defendants have moved for exclusion of the plaintiffs’ technical expert, who was proffered to testify as to infringement and invalidity of five patents-in-suit. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion, which included five assertions as to why the testimony should be excluded.
City of Fort Collins v. Open Int’l, LLC
In a breach of contract suit concerning failure of vendor to deliver software, the court considered and ruled on motions to exclude certain expert witnesses. The court denied most motions while granting some motions in part.
U.S. District Court (Colorado) Rules on Motions to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witnesses
In a breach of contract suit concerning failure of vendor to deliver software, the court considered and ruled on motions to exclude certain expert witnesses. The court denied most motions while granting some motions in part.
In a damages case, one expert survives Daubert, another does not
In an ongoing damages case in Delaware, the plaintiff had a Daubert motion to exclude the opinions of the defendant’s rebuttal expert.
Ipse dixit nixes some of expert’s opinion
In an economic damages case in Delaware, both sides filed a number of motions to exclude expert testimony, evidence, and arguments.
VeroBlue Farms USA Inc. v. Wulf
In this complex case, which the district court judge called “a doozy,” the subject of this subissue was a motion by the defendants to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s (VeroBlue Farms USA Inc.) damages expert, Brandi Kleinman, CPA/CFF. The district court judge assigned the case to the court’s magistrate judge for recommendation of decision. The motion alleged a multitude of issues and flaws with the opinions of Kleinman. The magistrate, despite these alleged issues and flaws, denied the motion, thereby allowing Kleinman to testify.
U.S. District Court (Texas) Allows Testimony of Damages Expert Despite Alleged ‘Flawed Opinions’
In this complex case, which the district court judge called “a doozy,” the subject of this subissue was a motion by the defendants to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s (VeroBlue Farms USA Inc.) damages expert, Brandi Kleinman, CPA/CFF. The district court judge assigned the case to the court’s magistrate judge for recommendation of decision. The motion alleged a multitude of issues and flaws with the opinions of Kleinman. The magistrate, despite these alleged issues and flaws, denied the motion, thereby allowing Kleinman to testify.
Donnelly v. ProPharma Grp. Topco LLC
The plaintiff sued for breach of contracts relating to ProPharma’s offer to have Donnelly join the board in 2016 and for not paying him for his incentive equity shares, implemented in 2017, at fair market value. Each side engaged an experienced business valuation expert to opine as to the fair market value of the equity shares. Each side now moved to exclude the testimony of the other side’s expert. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the motions of both sides and allowed both experts to testify.
In a Breach of Contract Suit, the U.S. District Court Denies Motions to Exclude Valuation Experts
The plaintiff sued for breach of contracts relating to ProPharma’s offer to have Donnelly join the board in 2016 and for not paying him for his incentive equity shares, implemented in 2017, at fair market value. Each side engaged an experienced business valuation expert to opine as to the fair market value of the equity shares. Each side now moved to exclude the testimony of the other side’s expert. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the motions of both sides and allowed both experts to testify.
Delaware Court Grants in Some Cases and Denies in Others Motions to Exclude Expert Witnesses and Certain Evidence to Be Presented
In this ongoing case regarding investment banking services and fees, the court ruled on various motions of the parties to exclude certain testimony from two expert witnesses, one from each side, and to exclude certain evidence to be presented by those witnesses. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions but granted the defendant’s motions.
LCT Capital, LLC v. NGL Energy Partners LP
In this ongoing case regarding investment banking services and fees, the court ruled on various motions of the parties to exclude certain testimony from two expert witnesses, one from each side, and to exclude certain evidence to be presented by those witnesses. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions but granted the defendant’s motions.
Manbro Energy Corp. v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
U.S. District Court (New York) Denies Motion to Exclude Expert Witness
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
IP damages experts dodge exclusion in trademark case
In a trademark infringement case in Florida, the plaintiff’s expert (an economist) was to testify as to corrective advertising damages, but the defendant made a motion that she be excluded.
SEC v. Bluepoint Inv. Counsel
This case dealt with a suit by the SEC against the defendants for alleged violations of the Securities Act. The ruling digested here was a short ruling on motions in limine. The key motion considered here was a motion to exclude evidence of Amiran’s value not known by GTIF (a plaintiff’s entity) when valuations were prepared. The court denied the motion to exclude the SEC’s expert on the basis that she used information that was known or knowable. The court noted that her assumptions can be challenged on cross-examination.
U.S. District Court Rules on Known or Knowable Issue and Allows Testimony of SEC Valuation Expert—Can Be Challenged on Cross-Examination
This case dealt with a suit by the SEC against the defendants for alleged violations of the Securities Act. The ruling digested here was a short ruling on motions in limine. The key motion considered here was a motion to exclude evidence of Amiran’s value not known by GTIF (a plaintiff’s entity) when valuations were prepared. The court denied the motion to exclude the SEC’s expert on the basis that she used information that was known or knowable. The court noted that her assumptions can be challenged on cross-examination.
Therapeutics MD, Inc. v. Evofem Biosciences, Inc.
In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.
Magistrate Judge Recommends That the Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Defendant’s Experts Be Denied and That the Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Experts Be Granted in Part and Denied in Part
In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.
Damages testimony undergoes Daubert treatment in class certification stage
Class actions have their own rules, including when it comes to expert testimony. An unresolved issue is whether damages expert testimony is subject to a Daubert inquiry at the class certification stage, before the court has approved the request to proceed as a class action. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to give clear guidance, but defendants are increasingly proactive and move to exclude the testimony at the beginning of the litigation in an attempt to thwart class certification and knock the case out early.