62 results for 'cat:"Experts" AND cat:"Discovery"'.
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly excluded the defendant tour company's expert disclosure because it was not accompanied by a written report containing the alleged false online reviews considered by the expert informing the opinion. The omission of this information prejudiced the plaintiff taxi tour companies' ability to respond to the expert's opinion. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 16, 2024, Case #: 02760, Categories: Fraud, experts, discovery
J. Jones orders the insureds to respond to two of the insurance company's interrogatories for the insureds' complaint alleging that the insurance company must fully cover the insureds' underinsured motorist claim. One of the interrogatories is relevant to the case because it deals with employment history and the insureds claim that they lost substantial wages, while the other interrogatory deals with why the insureds think that the insurance company violated the Insurance Fair Conduct Act, and the insureds cannot delegate their duty to respond on their expert witness.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Jones, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv420, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, experts, discovery
J. Palafox grants mandamus relief after finding a lower court erred in a convoluted dispute that emerged from a personal injury case after it became clear at trial that an expert the injured man planned to call had a conflict of interest with a law firm representing the trucking company he was suing. The injured man is right that, because the trial date had been reset for a later date, discovery deadlines should have also been extended. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Palafox, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00256-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, experts, discovery
J. Nivison grants in part a behavioral health and education company’s motion for the exclusion of certain expert testimony and the reimbursement of attorney fees after they were sued by the parents of an adult who defendant allegedly failed to provide appropriate care for. The parents’ expert witness designations are adequate but it is inappropriate that counsel attempted to influence the expert testimony.
Court: USDC Maine, Judge: Nivison, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv54, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: experts, discovery, Attorney Fees
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Traum grants the newspaper's motion to exclude expert testimony that was to be made on behalf of another media company in support of its claims the newspaper breached the cooperation and quality provisions of a joint operating arrangement triggering this range of antitrust and contract claims and counterclaims. The paper provides no source that calls into question the expert's methods. The validity challenge can be pursued before the jury.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Traum , Filed On: March 31, 2024, Case #: 2:19cv1667, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: Antitrust, experts, discovery
J. Figueredo denies the lender's motion to strike an expert opinion in a suit against a borrower, seeking to collect on a $14 million loan secured by a Jean-Michel Basquiat painting. The lender now claims to have possession of the Basquiat and wants to sell the painting, but third parties purport to hold an interest in the painting. A third-party's expert is qualifies to opine on asset-backed lending and the standards of reasonable diligence in the art market relative to the loans made by the lender.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Figueredo, Filed On: March 14, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv4669, NOS: All Other Real Property - Real Property, Categories: experts, discovery, Banking / Lending
J. Estudillo denies the prison healthcare service's motion to exclude the inmate's expert, Dr. Isabel Hujoel, from testifying in his lawsuit alleging that the county and Nashville healthcare company did not accommodate his celiac disease while he was in custody. Dr. Hujoel is well qualified because she is a gastroenterologist who specializes in celiac disease, and her report focuses on how the inmate suffered “acute injury and distress” due to the lack of a gluten-free diet; she does not testify as to monetary or economic damages.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Estudillo, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv6106, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities - Other - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, experts, discovery
J. Goodwin partially grants the defendant motorist's motions in limine in this personal injury lawsuit arising from a motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff motorist and his non-expert fact witnesses may testify as to mental and emotional pain suffered from the experience, but cannot testify as to the motorist's injuries and treatment. The plaintiff motorist is also prohibited from "urging the jury to send a message with its verdict," as this would be inappropriate.
Court: USDC Western District of Oklahoma , Judge: Goodwin, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv389, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Tort, experts, discovery
J. Montenegro grants the students' motion to overturn a magistrate judge’s discovery order in their case seeking a partial refund of tuition for the 2020-2021 academic year when the university switched to remote learning due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The magistrate judge erred in striking a supplemental expert report that was deemed untimely. The practical effect of striking the expert's damages calculation amounts to the dismissal of the students' contract and unjust enrichment claims, which is too severe a sanction.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Montenegro, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv1946, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Education, experts, discovery
J. Sykes grants the customer's motion to exclude Costco's expert witness from testifying in her personal injury and premises liability lawsuit due to the expert's late disclosure report and the late date of his deposition. A decision "by counsel to schedule and take a vacation just three days before trial, when said counsel knew a deposition and an expert report remained outstanding, cannot be substantial justification for a late disclosure." The customer's counsel did not receive the report until the last day before trial in this matter began.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Sykes, Filed On: December 16, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv4470, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: experts, discovery, Premises Liability
J. DeGiusti partially denies the city's motion to strike an affidavit in this lawsuit arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a city police officer who was allegedly driving his personal vehicle at a speed exceeding the posted speed limit at the time of the incident. The court will not strike the affidavit at issue, though it notes that the plaintiffs failed to disclose the witness "at numerous points during this case." They will also be allowed to amend the final witness list.
Court: USDC Western District of Oklahoma , Judge: DeGiusti, Filed On: December 15, 2023, Case #: 5:20cv851, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Tort, experts, discovery
J. Armistead completely excludes the opinion of the widow's expert, epidemiologist Michael Freeman, from her complaint that the prison healthcare service company and its employees did not give her spouse adequate medical care while he was in custody, resulting in his death three days after he was detained. Freeman asserts that he can rule out alternative causes for the husband's death, but he does not attempt to identify these specific alternative causes, nor does the widow show that Freeman's methods for reaching his conclusions are peer-reviewed or "based on sound science."
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Armistead, Filed On: December 15, 2023, Case #: 3:19cv969, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, experts, discovery
J. Griggsby partially grants a contractor’s motion to exclude testimony from two experts retained by a manufacturer as well as its cross-motion to exclude testimony from the contractor’s expert in this contract dispute. A report brought by the manufacturer’s expert will not be struck in full, but part of his opinion included a legal conclusion that will be struck. The manufacturer’s president is directed to produce additional information regarding his opinions. The contractor's construction management expert will not be excluded, but must produce additional information regarding disputed flash cards and logs in order to reopen discovery. The court also grants the manufacturer’s motion for sanctions and an insurer's motions for attorney fees; the contractor must pay a total of $30,410 to the firm and $10,347 to the insurer for expenses incurred during the reopened discovery period.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Griggsby, Filed On: December 8, 2023, Case #: 1:19cv2323, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: experts, discovery, Contract
J. Rodriguez grants the real estate company's motion to substitute an expert witness in its lawsuit over an insurance payment for damage and repair to the real estate company's property. The company's original expert witness became unavailable due to his wife's health issues more than a month after his timely designation, which was outside of the company's control. The deadline to designate expert witnesses is granted for the sole purpose of allowing the company to redesignate this expert.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: December 6, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv1789, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, experts, discovery
J. Peterson denies the city's motion to exclude the "tribal scenario" portion of the Monsanto's expert's opinion in the city's complaint accusing the agrochemical company of manufacturing polychlorinated biphenyls that contaminated the Lower Duwamish River. The city does not sufficiently argue how the tribal scenario's use of specific data from a 2000 fish consumption survey of the Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Indian Reservation in the Puget Sound Region, rather than data from the entire Puget Sound Region, makes it irrelevant to this lawsuit.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Peterson, Filed On: December 1, 2023, Case #: 2:16cv107, NOS: Torts to Land - Real Property, Categories: Environment, experts, discovery
J. Montenegro partially grants the county's motion to exclude the family's expert's opinion in a lawsuit over the death of an inmate at the San Diego Jail. The expert admits that he is not qualified to render a standard of care opinion for nurses, so he is precluded from testifying on the actions of specific nurse defendants. However, he can opine on deficiencies in the care decedent received and how that may have contributed to his death.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Montenegro, Filed On: December 1, 2023, Case #: 3:20cv457, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: experts, Wrongful Death, discovery
J. Leung denies the declaratory judgment seeker's motions to strike portions of an expert report, expert disclosure, diligence documents and undisclosed testimony and partially grants its motion to compel production of notebooks kept by the patent holders' principal. The requested notebooks are relevant to the judgment seeker's claim that its product did not infringe the patent holders' patents, they need not be communications to be responsive, and it would not be unduly burdensome or untimely to produce them at this point, particularly since the judgment seeker first learned of them in the context of the principal's trial testimony. A motion to strike new infringement theories fails because no new infringement theory has actually been disclosed. A motion to strike a summary of anticipated expert testimony similarly fails because the summary does not alter the existing infringement theories. Finally, spreadsheets regarding the disputed software are demonstrative evidence and need not be excluded at this time.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Leung, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 0:20cv700, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Patent, experts, discovery
J. Wu grants the government's motion to exclude improperly disclosed witnesses and limit the testimony of certain witnesses in the driver's lawsuit alleging that a U.S. Postal Service mail-delivery truck driver negligently merged into the driver's lane, causing a collision. Among other errors, the driver does not provide proper expert disclosures for her non-retained treating physicians, and she does not provide a summary of facts as to how these individuals would testify about her injuries.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Wu, Filed On: November 17, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv3290, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Vehicle, experts, discovery
J. Bell partially grants a consumer’s motion to stay his case against an insurance company, specifically to pause proceedings into early 2024 so that discovery can be completed. However, the consumer is denied a stay of unspecified length based on an unresolved underlying state court case as the company is not party to it. Also, for its part, the company also never took the opportunity to depose the consumer’s expert witnesses even though it had knowledge of them, which is another reason for the pause in proceedings.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Bell, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 5:22cv73, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, experts, discovery
J. Peterson grants the city's motion to exclude the proposed expert testimony of Dr. David L. Sunding from its lawsuit alleging that polychlorinated biphenyls from Monsanto's product, Aroclor, contaminated the Lower Duwamish River. Dr. Sunding's supplemental report is time barred because he submitted it nearly six months after the November 2023 expert report deadline, and on the last day of the parties' expert discovery period.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Peterson, Filed On: October 26, 2023, Case #: 2:16cv107, NOS: Torts to Land - Real Property, Categories: Tort, experts, discovery
J. Brown denies the insurance companies' motion to exclude the insurer's untimely identified medical expert in her complaint seeking recovery for injuries and property damages she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle collision. Because the insured has not yet reached maximum medical recovery, a brief continuance of the pre-trial deadlines and trial date is appropriate to allow her to complete her medical treatment, reach maximum medical recovery, and for the parties to complete discovery on damages.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Brown, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv2969, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Insurance, experts, discovery
J. Snyder grants in part a homeowner’s motion in limine in an insurance coverage dispute regarding claims for damage caused to her home by fire, ash and rain. The insurer is precluded from arguing that a basement wall claim was the basis for the homeowner’s claim. Evidence of claims by other insureds is inadmissible. Undisclosed expert witnesses are excluded. One expert is precluded from offering engineering opinions or opinions on whether the engineering reports have merit.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv172, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, experts, discovery