Chemical Engineering Expert Witness Experience & Discovery – IMS Insights Podcast Episode 48
Podcast: Science in the Courtroom
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 159: Listen and Learn -- Evidence: Expert vs. Lay Witness Testimony
Podcast: What Witness Preparation Means
Podcast: Seven Witness Preparation Mistakes Lawyers Make
Podcast: Raise Your Right Hand, Miss Lillian
Jones Day Talks Intellectual Property: Blurrier Lines and Narrow Grounds—Implications of the Ninth Circuit’s Blurred Lines Decision
Episode 015: Confessions of a Business Appraiser: A Conversation with Chris Mercer
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Class Certification in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires parties to disclose the opinions of experts who may present evidence at trial. If the disclosures are inadequate, Rule 37(c) requires exclusion of the opinions “unless the...more
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but that doesn’t make the camera an expert witness. Product liability actions usually require expert testimony to prove defect and causation. Pictures, like other documents, can be...more
Multidistrict litigation is meant to “promote the just and efficient conduct” of actions “involving one or more common questions of fact” by transferring those actions to a single district court “for coordinated or...more
U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently issued a decision granting summary judgment for an insurance carrier in a first-party case involving alleged...more
As Nobel laureate Richard Feynman once observed, “[w]isdom is knowing when to ask the right questions.” A related proposition is that wise jurists know how to identify and focus on the right questions. Motion practice can...more
In December 2023, back when the ink was still drying on the amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Southern District of New York excluded all five general causation experts proffered by plaintiffs in the In re...more
As we reported in April, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified a question on California’s Learned Intermediary Doctrine in Himes v. Somatics, LLC, 2022 WL 989469 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022). The...more
When tasked with assessing the admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, courts often cite the so-called Daubert factors as criteria that guide the inquiry. Among those factors is “whether the...more
Key Points: Plaintiff’s non-retained experts are treating physicians, and their testimony at trial should be limited to their scope of treatment, diagnosis, and prognosis with respect to the injuries alleged....more
Employers litigating cases in California courts face many obstacles. Summary judgment has become increasingly difficult for employers. Criminal cases take precedent and often cause trial postponements, resulting in civil...more
California’s evidentiary rules have changed. As of January 1, 2024, defense expert testimony in medical causation cases is subject to a higher threshold....more
The Committee Notes to the newly implemented amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 make clear that the “[j]udicial gatekeeping” of expert evidence is “essential.” Federal courts in New York have played an important role...more
Court: The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division - Johnson & Johnson has successfully appealed a $223.8 judgment against it following a trial involving allegations of asbestos-contaminated talcum powder in...more
On July 17, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) No. 652, adding Section 801.1 to the California Evidence Code. This section provides additional requirements for expert opinions relating to medical...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s recent opinion in Majestic Oil, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Subscribing to Policy Number W1B527170201, No. 21-20542 (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 2023),...more
A central tenet of toxicology is that “the dose makes the poison.” Every chemical is toxic if enough of it is consumed, and every chemical has some dose – even if miniscule – at which it poses no significant risk. A chemical...more
Court: United States District Court for the District of Utah - This case arises out of decedent John C. Riegler’s diagnosis of mesothelioma, which plaintiff alleges stems from decedent’s work at a service station,...more
The question of whether a particular application of herbicide on one property caused damage on another’s property requires expert testimony. When a plaintiff claims that herbicide drift caused reduced crop yields, it is not...more
Harris Beach attorneys Abbie Eliasberg Fuchs, Bradley M. Wanner and Daniel R. Strecker review and analyze key judicial holdings and legal developments in New York, the federal arena and across the country that have affected...more
The Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Guijarro v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., No. 21-40512, 2022 WL 2433778 (5th Cir. July 5, 2022), provides solid foundational arguments on issues pertinent in most product-liability cases....more
On opening an opinion, lawyers habitually roll their eyes when they see a table of contents. Even more so when they learn the opinion is over 300 pages. The MDL order granting defense motions to exclude experts and for...more
State of New York, Supreme Court, County of Niagara, November 4, 2022 - Plaintiffs Benedict Viglietta and Terri Viglietta alleged that Mr. Viglietta developed mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos while...more
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, October 24, 2022 - Plaintiff Ronald John Falgout, as the independent executor and successor of decedent Ruby Lee Marie Falgout, brought this action in October...more
Peer-reviewed literature can be a powerful tool in attacking an opposing expert’s opinions. A solid, on-point article can do more than merely satisfy several of the so-called Daubert factors for assessing reliability – by...more
There are few legal phrases more fun to say than “ipse dixit.” The phrase is most commonly used in motions to exclude experts who base their opinions on nothing more than their own say so...more