Assigning fault and responsibility in a lawsuit involving a school is rarely clear cut.
This week we bring you two fresh district court rulings involving experts who survived "gatekeeping" admissibility challenges under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.
Experts in almost any field sometimes need assistance in determining the best method and means to present a point or to support it in a report.
You would expect a challenge to an expert witness to be made before trial, before the expert has the opportunity to testify.
Eyewitnesses to the event may only tell what they saw, heard, felt or smelled; they are not allowed to tell what others have said (hearsay) or say what they think of the case.
Experts are a very important, and often critical, component of a lawsuit. Aside from all of the traditional elements and facets (Forensic Analysis & Testimony), is the litany of activities that the Expert may play in the initial role of Consultant to the Attorney.
When you sue Facebook and its founder Mark Zuckerberg claiming three-quarters ownership in the wildly successful social network, you are certain to get attention.
Think you have that winning expert witness in your back pocket? Think again. The 6th Circuit has recently released an opinion that reminds experts and attorneys to use extreme caution: That ace-in-the-hole, hired-gun expert witness might just backfire if you're not careful.
A somewhat touchy expert witness question recently surfaced in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana. After designating an expert witness as a testifying expert, a party decided to shift gears during discovery, suddenly re-designating its expert as non-testifying, consulting.
The following suggestions result from my experience serving as a witness, watching hundreds of other expert witnesses, and locating witnesses when servings as a confidential consultant. They are intended to help attorneys avoid common mistakes in selecting an expert witness.
