In a significant decision for plaintiffs litigating traumatic brain injury (TBI) claims, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma has denied a defense motion to exclude expert testimony based on diffusion...more
Identifying junk science is merely the first step of the battle when considering argument approach and courtroom strategy. With this in mind, the main goals are to keep junk science out of the courtroom and, of course, win...more
The district court erred by admitting untimely expert testimony on noninfringement and by refusing to grant a new trial after the jury found noninfringement. Trudell Medical International (“Trudell”) sued D R Burton...more
Here at Bradley we frequently represent clients pursuing or opposing claims for lost productivity on construction jobs. The gist of those claims is that something happened which decreased productivity and thereby increased...more
Class certification decisions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mark a critical stage in any putative class action lawsuit. Rule 23(a) requires plaintiffs to prove, among other things, that “there are...more
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
In June 2024, a California jury awarded plaintiffs nearly $4.8 billion in an antitrust class action against the National Football League (NFL) and DirecTV. In the case, In re National Football League's "Sunday Ticket"...more
Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 govern the admissibility of lay and expert opinion testimony, respectively, in federal courts. Rule 701(c) helps paint the line between the two, providing that an opinion “based on...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
It has now been over six months since the amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 regarding the admissibility of expert testimony went into effect on Dec. 1, 2023....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
In explaining the December 2023 amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Advisory Committee called out several ways in which “many courts” had “incorrectly” applied Rule 702 and failed to adequately discharge their...more
Consumer perception evidence is necessary for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in a false advertising class action, but vacillating and flawed connections between the evidence and the key question of what a reasonable...more
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 - The admission of expert testimony in federal courts is governed by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Effective December 1, 2023, Rule 702 was amended to clarify the “preponderance of...more
The longer and more frequently a principle is repeated by the courts, the more difficult it can be for courts to acknowledge change. As illustrated by the First Circuit’s opinion in Rodriguez v. Hospital San Cristobal, Inc.,...more
The federal rule of evidence governing expert testimony — Rule 702 — just saw its most significant change in almost 25 years. The new Rule 702, which went into effect Dec. 1, 2023, gives litigants important new tools for...more
On December 1, 2023, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was amended to “clarify and emphasize” that, before expert witness testimony can be admitted, the proponent must satisfy all the rule’s requirements by a preponderance of the...more
Effective December 1, 2023, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 has been amended to address the standard for admission of expert opinion testimony. The amendments confirm that the trial judge, in its gatekeeping role, must determine...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
Experts play a key role in patent litigation as they explain complex technical issues including infringement, validity, and damages to judges and juries. The persuasiveness of their testimony can often mean the difference...more
The amended language of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony in federal court, takes effect on December 1, 2023. Even though the Advisory Committee comment stresses that it...more
Fun fact: There are 23 holidays that can be celebrated today, December 1st. Some, like Rosa Parks Day and World AIDS Day, are solemn and serious. Others are silly and fun, like National Peppermint Bark Day and National...more
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs expert witness testimony in federal courts. On April 24, 2023, the United States Supreme Court approved an amendment to Rule 702 (the “Amendment”), which will go into effect...more
On June 7, 2022, the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure approved amendments to several of the Federal Rules of Evidence—including Rule 702, which governs the admissibility of expert witness...more
On December 1, 2023, Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 702 will be amended, following the Supreme Court’s adoption of the amendment earlier this year. FRE 702 governs the admission of expert testimony in the federal courts,...more