Vermont Court limits executive search and recruitment expert’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s job qualifications and associated compensation range

Although Ketchum is qualified as an expert based on his extensive professional experience in executive recruiting, portions of his opinions were excluded as unreliable under Rule 702. His opinion on Wolfe’s probable compensation range relied solely on limited data points regarding Wolfe’s prior salary and his successor’s pay without explaining his reasoning. Ketchum’s opinion that Wolfe’s job search efforts were reasonable was an inadmissible legal conclusion. His media research opinion failed to provide an admissible causation analysis and ignored unfavorable evidence. Despite Ketchum’s qualifications, his methodology was inadequate regarding these opinions, warranting exclusion under Rule 702.

Read More →

FTX Founder’s Experts Face Exclusion in Cryptocurrency Fraud Case

The upcoming fraud trial of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried recently faced a major development regarding expert witnesses. Federal prosecutors filed motions to completely exclude all seven expert witnesses noticed by Bankman-Fried’s defense team. The Government argues the testimony of experts including a barrister, professors, and industry professionals would be irrelevant, unreliable, confusing, or prejudicial. Specifically, prosecutors say the witnesses improperly intend to offer legal conclusions that are the court’s purview, speculate about Bankman-Fried’s intent, provide unnecessary background, or discuss industry practices unrelated to the allegations. Authorities also contend some experts lack qualifications to opine on cryptocurrency and FTX, while others failed to adequately disclose their opinions and analysis as required. The prosecution’s motions aim to block expert testimony that they say either usurps the roles of the judge and jury, lacks a scientific basis, or seeks to distract from the core issues of alleged fraud, misappropriation, and false statements. The court has not yet ruled on whether to exclude the defense experts. Jury selection for Bankman-Fried’s New York trial on charges tied to FTX’s collapse begins October 2.

Read More →

Nebraska Court excludes Employment Law Expert’s testimony in Employment Discrimination suit 

Plaintiff, Amanda Benson offered the testimony of Dr. Christiane Tellefsen, a forensic psychiatry expert and Amy Oppenheimer, an employment law expert to substantiate it’s claims of employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against the Defendant, City of Lincoln. When City of Lincoln filed Daubert motions against both experts, the Court admitted the testimony of Dr. Christiane Tellefsen despite allegations of the testimony being based on an unreliable methodology but excluded the testimony of Amy Oppenheimer because it consisted of legal conclusions.

#WrongfulTermination #DaubertMotion #ForensicPsychiatryExpert #EmploymentLawExpert

Read More →

Alaska District Court Limits Insurance Expert’s Testimony  

Plaintiff, Tundra Mountain Holdings, LLC instituted this action to recover its insurance claims from Defendant, Markel Insurance Company. Markel Insurance Company cited the defective design exclusion clause of Tundra’s insurance policy to deny coverage. Tundra retained Elliot S. Flood, a former head auditor and Certified Public Accountant with special expertise in insurance accounting for his take on the insurance industry customs. Markel challenged the admissibility of Flood’s testimony, arguing that he opined beyond the scope of his expertise and drew legal conclusions amidst relevance and reliability concerns. The Court observed that though Flood did invade the province of the Court, he was not unqualified and his opinions were reliable and relevant to the jury’s consideration. This case still awaits a final decision.

Read More →

Kentucky Court excludes testimony of Gender Equity Expert on Title IX Violations Case 

Plaintiffs vs. University of Kentucky: Exclusion of Expert Testimony on Title IX Violations

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Niblock and Meredith Newman alleged Title IX violations against the University of Kentucky. The testimony of Expert witness Donna Lopiano’s testimony in support of the allegations was challenged by the University of Kentucky. Key issues include Lopiano’s legal conclusions, reliability of her analysis, and her qualification to opine on certain matters. The court’s ruling excludes Lopiano’s testimony, stressing the importance of avoiding legal conclusions, ensuring a reliable methodological basis and emphasized on experts opining within the confines of their expertise. The outcome of the case is still pending.

Read More →
  • Recent Expert Challenges

    Expert Challenges, Fire Investigation Expert Witness

    Expert Fire Investigator’s testimony determining the point of origin and cause of the fire found reliable

    September 29, 2023

    Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness, Expert Challenges

    Court limits expert testimony on crash reconstruction and its contributing factors

    September 28, 2023

  • Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
    Your subscription has been successful.

    Stay on top of expert witness law and research updates!

    Subscribe to our newsletter and receive weekly updates right in your inbox!