There Is No “On-The-Job” Exception to Expert Witness Qualification Under Fed. R. Evid. 702, Holds the Ninth Circuit

In United States v. Holmes, No. 22-10312 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2025), the Theranos/Elizabeth Holmes fraud prosecution, the Ninth Circuit affirms the convictions and sentences. It acknowledges the defense argument that a former Theranos scientist should not have been allowed to offer Fed. R. Evid. 702 expert testimony as an occurrence witness, without being qualified,Continue reading “There Is No “On-The-Job” Exception to Expert Witness Qualification Under Fed. R. Evid. 702, Holds the Ninth Circuit”

Fourth Circuit Provides Guidance on the Division of Bench and Jury Duties in an Eminent Domain Proceeding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(h), Noting a Split with the First Circuit

In Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 9.89 Acres of Land, No. 23-2129 (4th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025), the Fourth Circuit addresses an issue of apparent first impression about the division of bench and jury duties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(h), governing federal eminent domain proceedings. On the admissibility of expert testimony, the panel issuesContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Provides Guidance on the Division of Bench and Jury Duties in an Eminent Domain Proceeding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(h), Noting a Split with the First Circuit”

Second Circuit Holds That Under Hanna v. Plumer, Federal Rather Than State Expert Witness Rules Apply in Diversity Tort Case

In Sarkees v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., No. 20-3170 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2021), the Second Circuit reverses summary judgment in negligence, strict products liability, and loss of consortium action on the ground that the district court erroneously excluded the plaintiff’s expert witness by applying state-law admissibility rules rather than the FederalContinue reading “Second Circuit Holds That Under Hanna v. Plumer, Federal Rather Than State Expert Witness Rules Apply in Diversity Tort Case”

Expert Report Proffered by a Party in a Prior Case Is Not Automatically a “Party Admission” for Purposes of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(C), Holds Fifth Circuit

In HTC Corp.  v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 19-40566 (5th Cir. Aug. 31, 2021), the Fifth Circuit affirms exclusion of an expert report from a valuation expert who the defendant had used in prior litigation, holding that the prior expert’s testimony is inadmissible hearsay and not admissible as a party admission under Fed. R. Evid.Continue reading “Expert Report Proffered by a Party in a Prior Case Is Not Automatically a “Party Admission” for Purposes of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(C), Holds Fifth Circuit”