Newsletter RSS

Mealey's Daubert

  • April 22, 2026

    Parties: 4th Circuit Standard On Expert Admissibility Requires High Court Review

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Union Carbide Corp. and an affiliate on April 21 filed a reply brief in support of their petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it should review a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinion pertaining to the correct legal standard for the admissibility of an expert in an ethylene oxide (EtO) injury case because the appellate court “continues to apply the toothless standard for admitting expert testimony that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was amended in 2023 to repudiate.”

  • April 21, 2026

    Experts Featured In Mealey’s Daubert Report

    Entries are in alphabetical order of the expert in each area of expert testimony.  Experts appeared in the January, February, March and April 2026 issue of Mealey’s Daubert Report.

  • April 21, 2026

    Ex-U.S. Marshal Convicted In Connection To Prisoner Assault After Expert Excluded

    LAFAYETTE, La. — A Louisiana federal court jury returned a verdict finding a former deputy U.S. Marshal guilty of violating a prisoner’s constitutional rights by subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment during an assault and falsifying records; the verdict came days after the judge presiding over the case ruled that the defendant’s expert could not testify on proper use of force and whether the victim posed an imminent physical threat to the defendant.

  • April 21, 2026

    Judge Excludes 1 Expert, Limits Testimony From 3 Others In Slip-And-Fall Case

    ORLANDO, Fla. — A Florida federal judge ruled that an expert retained to opine on what caused a man to fall outside of a convenience store cannot testify because his conclusions that the lack of nonskid additive in the paint on the curb of the sidewalk created a dangerous situation are unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.

  • April 21, 2026

    Miss. Supreme Court: Judge Properly Used ‘Wide Discretion’ In Excluding Expert

    JACKSON, Miss. — A Mississippi trial court was within its discretion when it excluded testimony from an expert in a medical malpractice suit and granted summary judgment to the doctor, a split Mississippi Supreme Court said in reversing a state appellate court ruling that said the expert’s testimony was admissible.

  • April 21, 2026

    Expert Can Testify In Third-Party Seller Pricing Policy Case Against Amazon

    SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge denied a motion to exclude an expert from testifying in support of a class certification motion in a Sherman Act antitrust suit filed against Amazon.com Inc., noting that the court in a similar case  ruled that the expert’s testimony is admissible.

  • April 20, 2026

    High Court Won’t Consider Dispute On Daubert Requirements For Class Certification

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 20 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., which argued that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in granting certification to a class action and that the high court must rule on whether experts must be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for class certification motions.

  • April 17, 2026

    7th Circuit Finds Fingerprint Analyst Properly Admitted, Affirms Conviction

    CHICAGO — Allowing a fingerprint analyst to testify for the government in a criminal drug and firearm case was not an abuse of discretion, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said, affirming a conviction.

  • April 17, 2026

    D.C. Circuit: Expert Testimony Creates Issue Of Fact; Summary Judgment Reversed

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that a lower court erred in granting a company summary judgment on a negligence claim in a slip-and-fall case because “the expert testimony created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the walkway was dangerously slippery.”

  • April 10, 2026

    Judge Says Expert Can’t Opine For Woman Who Claims Injury From Broken Escalator

    CINCINNATI — An engineer retained by a woman who says she was injured on an escalator at a Dick’s Sporting Goods store “is unqualified to testify on escalator maintenance and offered unreliable methodologies to support testimony that will not assist a trier of fact,” an Ohio federal judge said in granting the company’s motion to exclude the testimony.

  • April 08, 2026

    School’s Experts May Testify In PCB Case Against Monsanto, Federal Judge Says

    BURLINGTON, Vt. — A federal judge in Vermont on April 7 denied Monsanto Co.’s motion to exclude the opinions of two experts for the Burlington School District (BSD) in its lawsuit alleging contamination from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), saying that he found no reason to exclude their opinions because they are based on Monsanto’s own statements about its responsibilities to protect consumers and the planet. He also said the opinions in question “appear to be supported by a substantial documentary record.”

  • April 08, 2026

    Utah Federal Judge Denies Motions To Exclude Expert In Medical Malpractice Case

    SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah federal judge ruled that an expert retained by a woman suing her doctor and his medical group for medical malpractice during her pregnancy that she alleges resulted in brain injuries to her child may opine on standards of care but is unqualified to offer an opinion on what caused those injuries; the judge also denied a separate motion to exclude testimony from three other experts on the costs to care for the child after finding that any late disclosures of evidence regarding those costs are unprejudicial and do not warrant exclusion.

  • April 08, 2026

    Judge Grants Summary Judgment After Excluding Causation Expert In Accident Case

    DETROIT — A Michigan federal judge agreed to grant the United States summary judgment in a personal injury case stemming from a vehicle accident with a mail truck after finding that the man’s claims are impermissible under the Michigan’s No-Fault Act and that testimony from his expert is inadmissible under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.

  • April 08, 2026

    Expert In Hurricane Irma Damages Case Improperly Excluded, Case Remanded

    MIAMI — The report of an expert retained by homeowners who sued their insurer for failing to pay for damages to a roof allegedly caused by a hurricane was improperly excluded by a trial court that considered “the weight of the evidence rather than a threshold examination of the qualifications, methodology and conclusions of the expert,” a Florida appellate court held.

  • April 07, 2026

    Woman: Supreme Court Review Not Needed In Dispute Over Expert Admissibility

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court should not hear Union Carbide Corp.’s petition for review of a federal appellate court opinion in a dispute over the correct legal standard for the admissibility of an expert in an ethylene oxide (EtO) injury case because “there is no fissure” between the circuit courts in their application of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the respondent argues in a brief filed April 6.

  • April 03, 2026

    Judge: Expert Can Testify For Monsanto On Cost To Rebuild Contaminated School

    BURLINGTON, Vt. — A Vermont federal judge was unconvinced by arguments from Monsanto Co. that experts retained by the Burlington School District (BSD) should be excluded from testifying in support of the school district’s lawsuit alleging contamination from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

  • April 02, 2026

    Judge: Plaintiffs’ Expert Can Opine On Design Defects In Bard Port Catheter MDL

    PHOENIX — A biomaterials scientist retained by the plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation involving C.R. Bard Inc.’s implanted port catheter (IPC) device can largely offer her opinions on design defects but cannot opine that a certain defect led to a risk of infection, the judge overseeing the MDL said after finding that the scientist’s testimony meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.

  • April 01, 2026

    Depo-Provera MDL Judge Won’t Hear Arguments On Joint Hearings For Expert Challenges

    PENSACOLA, Fla. — The Florida federal judge overseeing the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation for cases alleging that a long-lasting injectable contraceptive caused women to develop intracranial meningiomas, a type of brain tumor, ordered that a notice filed by law firm Keller Postman LLC asking that the court reconsider its decision to hold joint hearings with state courts on the admissibility of expert witnesses be stricken sua sponte.

  • April 01, 2026

    Appellee, Amicus: Rehearing Needed To Pin Down Patent Witness Rules

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — An amicus curiae public interest law firm argues in its March 31 brief that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should grant a petition for rehearing en banc by DePuy Synthes Sales Inc. and related DePuy entities, echoing DePuy’s claims that a split panel’s decision to reverse a Pennsylvania federal court’s exclusion of two expert witnesses’ testimony on induced infringement constitutes a departure from recent Federal Circuit en banc precedent.

  • March 31, 2026

    Judge: Expert In Insurance Coverage Dispute Can Testify, But With Limitations

    DENVER — A Colorado federal judge on March 30 limited expert testimony offered by a construction company suing an insurance company for breach of contract in its handling of a claim for damages caused by a hailstorm, finding that some of the expert’s opinions constitute impermissible legal conclusions.

  • March 27, 2026

    Parties To Mediate Coverage Dispute Suit After Texas Federal Judge Denies Motions

    DALLAS — The insurer and the insured in a federal lawsuit alleging bad faith, breach of contract and other claims in a dispute over whether damage to the roofs of two Texas buildings was caused by a 2021 hailstorm agreed in a March 26 notice “to have a magistrate judge conduct a settlement conference or mediation” for the case, taking up a judge’s offer that was included in an opinion denying a motion for summary judgment and motions to exclude and strike expert opinions and testimony.

  • March 26, 2026

    J&J Insists Circuits Are Split On Daubert Requirements For Class Certification

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A representative of a class action who argues that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals properly found that a lower court relied on “an unexecuted damages model developed by an experienced economist” in granting certification of a class action mischaracterizes the case in her opposition to a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., and the high court must address the split the decision created, J&J says in a reply brief.

  • March 24, 2026

    Experts Featured In Mealey’s Daubert Report

    Entries are in alphabetical order of the expert in each area of expert testimony.  Experts appeared in the January, February and March 2026 issue of Mealey’s Daubert Report.

  • March 24, 2026

    Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling That Dismissed Royalty Claims In Long-Running Case

    PITTSBURGH — Plaintiffs in a long-running hydraulic fracturing royalty dispute have filed a notice that they are appealing an order by a Pennsylvania federal judge adopting a magistrate judge’s report and granting a fracking company’s motion for summary judgment dismissal of the claims.  The order on appeal also overruled the plaintiffs’ objections to the magistrate judge’s report.

  • March 24, 2026

    Judge: Experts Can Opine On Roof Damage In Hurricane Ian Insurance Claim Dispute

    FORT MYERS, Fla. — A Florida federal judge rejected arguments from an insurance company that three experts retained by an insured to testify on a policy claim dispute are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Fed. R. Evid. 702, and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.