Countering the Bad Expert: Don’t Expect Jurors to Deliberate Past the BS on Their Own

Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm | Holland & Hart In my opinion, it is one of the most interesting and important areas of social science at the moment. And if it’s not that, then it’s certainly the sassiest. A group of researchers has been focused on our susceptibility and resistance to various forms of bad information, disinformation,… Continue reading Countering the Bad Expert: Don’t Expect Jurors to Deliberate Past the BS on Their Own

Court Of Appeals Clarifies That Expert Testimony Required in Nearly All Faulty Construction Cases

Joseph Davies | Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers In a recent decision touching on many interesting issues, North Carolina’s Court of Appeals effectively determined that, in all but the most obvious cases, expert testimony is required to establish a failure to perform construction in a workmanlike fashion. Small Claims Court to Court of… Continue reading Court Of Appeals Clarifies That Expert Testimony Required in Nearly All Faulty Construction Cases

Courts Deal With “Dual-Hat” Experts: Part I

Thomas E. Spahn | McGuireWoods Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) governs testifying experts’ duty to produce “the facts or data considered by the witness in forming” his or her opinion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D) governs dramatically different non-testifying consulting experts. Not surprisingly, witnesses might switch from one role to the other, and also might possess arguably pertinent facts… Continue reading Courts Deal With “Dual-Hat” Experts: Part I

Courts Deal With “Dual-Hat” Experts: Part II

Thomas E. Spahn | McGuireWoods Last week’s Privilege Point addressed a court’s careful sorting out of discovery issues implicated when a non-testifying consulting expert created documents arguably related to his later role as a testifying expert. About two weeks later, the Southern District of New York (Judge Caproni) dealt with other issues involving non-testifying experts. In In re… Continue reading Courts Deal With “Dual-Hat” Experts: Part II

Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony

Melissa Kenney | The Subrogation Strategist Many subrogation claims involving fire losses rely heavily on expert testimony. Expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it is both relevant and reliable. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), whose standard has been incorporated into Federal Rule of Evidence 702,… Continue reading Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony

%d bloggers like this: