In re NFL “Sunday Ticket” Antitrust Litig.
This case was important because: (1) the court rejected a jury award because the jury did not follow the judge’s instructions and the award could not be derived from the evidence; and (2) the judge, post-trial, excluded two witnesses under Rule 702, finding their methodologies to be unreliable.
U.S. District Court (California) Overturns Jury’s $4.7 Billion Award in a Post-Trial Motion and Excludes Witnesses Under Rule 702
This case was important because: (1) the court rejected a jury award because the jury did not follow the judge’s instructions and the award could not be derived from the evidence; and (2) the judge, post-trial, excluded two witnesses under Rule 702, finding their methodologies to be unreliable.
Brown v. Progressive Mt. Ins. Co.
In discussing and ruling on motions to exclude portions of testimony of three experts in a class action case against Progressive Insurance for breach of contract in determining the actual cash value to be paid in valuing a used car, the court provided well-reasoned decisions as to the application of FRE 702. It was in effect a tutorial.
U.S. District Court (Georgia) Rules on Various Motions to Exclude Testimony Under FRE 702 (A Tutorial)
In discussing and ruling on motions to exclude portions of testimony of three experts in a class action case against Progressive Insurance for breach of contract in determining the actual cash value to be paid in valuing a used car, the court provided well-reasoned decisions as to the application of FRE 702. It was in effect a tutorial.
ECB USA, Inc. v. Savencia, S.A.
This case was an example of the application of Rule 702 as to witness acceptance or exclusion. In this case, the same witness was allowed to testify in part and excluded in part.
U.S. District Court Allows Testimony in Part of Expert Witness on Certain Damages
This case was an example of the application of Rule 702 as to witness acceptance or exclusion. In this case, the same witness was allowed to testify in part and was excluded in part.
West v. Home Depot
While this was not a business valuation- nor a finance-related case, it was one of the first cases under the December 2023 amendments of Rule 702 that specifically addressed “a historic safe harbor” allowing challenges under cross-examination in place of exclusion of witnesses.
Federal District Court (Illinois) Rules That Prior ‘Historic Safe Harbor’ No Longer Comports With Rule 702
While this was not a business valuation- nor a finance-related case, it was one of the first cases under the December 2023 amendments to Rule 702 that specifically addressed “a historic safe harbor” allowing challenges under cross-examination in place of exclusion of witnesses.
Wee v. Yangzhou Putian Shoemaking Co. (In re Unimex Corp.)
An expert’s report on debtor’s insolvency was excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because the expert’s 50% discount of inventory value was a flawed assumption given that the debtor was not being liquidated and was not on its deathbed, but instead was a going concern.
Expert’s Testimony Is Excluded as to Solvency—Adjustments to the Balance Sheet of Debtor Were Inappropriate
An expert’s report on debtor’s insolvency was excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because the expert’s 50% discount of inventory value was a flawed assumption given that the debtor was not being liquidated and was not on its deathbed, but instead was a going concern.
Another expert ‘Dauberted’ out of a damages case
In last week’s issue, we reported on a damages case in which a valuation expert’s testimony was excluded because of the methodology used in the analysis. In this week’s case (also a damages matter), the expert didn’t even get that far before being excluded.
Lost profits calculation goes off the track
In a Missouri breach of contract case, the plaintiffs were carriers who delivered print newspapers to subscribers under an agreement that gave them territorial rights.
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.
Bextermueller News Distribs., Inc. v. Lee Enters.
In determining damages, the plaintiffs’ damages expert used a method of determining damages revolving around a calculation of lost revenue. The defendants argued the testimony was irrelevant and unreliable because the lost revenue calculations were based on the erroneous premise that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, as damages, delivery fees for digital subscribers to a newspaper. The court disagreed and excluded the expert’s testimony under Rule 702.
Plaintiff Expert Is Excluded—Lost Revenue Calculation Is Not an Approach Allowed for Damages in Missouri (Rule 702 Exclusion)
Plaintiff news carriers operated as home delivery carriers under a contract with the defendant newspaper. Around 2017, the defendant began offering an electronic version of the newspaper, allegedly breaching the exclusive territorial provisions of the contract with the carriers. In determining damages, the plaintiffs’ damages expert used a method of determining damages revolving around a calculation of lost revenue. The defendants argued her testimony was irrelevant and unreliable because her lost revenue calculations were based on the erroneous premise that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, as damages, delivery fees for every digital subscriber. The court disagreed and excluded the expert’s testimony under Rule 702.
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.
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.
Patent Infringement Case Provides Judge With a Plethora of Daubert Challenges to Rule on
In this patent infringement case, the court ruled on a plethora of Daubert/Rule 702 challenges. The opinion provides an exhaustive list of Daubert-related issues that the court ruled on and provides a good tutorial on the real purposes of Daubert.
Shire ViroPharma Inc. v. CSL Behring LLC
In this patent infringement case, the court ruled on a plethora of Daubert/Rule 702 challenges. The opinion provides an exhaustive list of Daubert-related issues that the court ruled on and provides a good tutorial on the real purposes of Daubert.
Solvency opinion based on management projections faces Daubert challenge
In a bankruptcy-cum-Daubert case that turned on solvency, a court recently rejected both parties’ claims that the opposing financial expert testimony was inadmissible.
BVLaw Case Update
Join Jim Alerding, a veteran valuator, and Sylvia Golden, BVR’s legal editor, for a discussion of some of the most consequential recent valuation decisions. This selection of state and federal cases includes two key state court rulings on the use of discounts in valuing minority interests in buyback situations, a state court decision on the admissibility of calculations of value in divorce proceedings, an expansive statutory appraisal ruling involving a public company from a North ...
Experts Need Not Be ‘Blue-Ribbon Practitioners’ to Meet Rule 702 Qualification Requirement
In bankruptcy dispute, court rejects parties’ Daubert challenge to opposing expert testimony; defense expert did not blindly rely on management projections for capital adequacy and balance sheet tests, and plaintiff’s expert did not use hindsight to find debtor was insolvent on fund transfer dates.