6 results for 'cat:"Antitrust" AND cat:"Experts"'.
J. Tunheim grants the consumer and commercial indirect pork purchasers' and the direct pork purchasers' motions to certify classes in their antitrust action, and denies the port manufacturers' motions to exclude expert testimony of three experts. Each expert report satisfies the standard required for class certification, and all three classes satisfy the requirements of the civil procedure rules governing class actions.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 0:18cv1776, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, experts, Class Action
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. Lipman mostly denies the Varsity defendants' motion to exclude certain expert testimony in this antitrust lawsuit regarding the cheerleading industry, specifically concerning the prices associated with "competitive cheerleading competitions and camps." The defendants have not shown that the expert's methodology "in defining the cheer competition market" is unreliable. Their motion is granted, however, as to the expert's opinions "regarding Varsity's intent."
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Lipman, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv2892, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, experts
J. Lipman mostly denies the Varsity defendants' motion to exclude certain expert testimony in this antitrust lawsuit involving the cheerleading industry. The Varsity defendants' argument concerning the data used "to calculate relevant sales is a factual dispute suitable for cross-examination." Their motion is granted, however, as to the expert's "damages calculations for states in which Indirect Purchasers are not pursuing damages."
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Lipman, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv2892, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Damages, experts
J. Lipman mostly denies the cheerleading defendants' motion to exclude certain expert testimony in this antitrust class action involving the cheerleading industry, specifically regarding the prices paid to participate in "competitive cheerleading competitions and camps." The economic expert's opinions are mostly admissible, as the defendants have not shown that her methodology for defining relevant markets is unreliable. The motion is granted, however, as to "her opinions regarding Varsity's motives."
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Lipman, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv2892, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, experts, Class Action
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