No, not the end of an inning. The end of a motion to strike parts of an expert’s report, of course.
Expert witnesses deposed, after which they execute additional declarations. Can the declarations be stricken or the witnesses
Bryan Garner is an expert lexicographer, grammarian, and textualist. What he isn’t is testifying in federal court in Waco anytime soon.
Portions of the defendant’s damages and invalidity experts’ reports were ordered struck in this case, providing a good look at what is a bridge too far for an expert.
Not too long ago I posted on Judge Albright’s denial of a motion to substitute experts. He just ruled on the request to reconsider that decision. I would say, as I did recently on the SJ motion in this case, that that would give us insight into how he views motions to reconsider, but the graphic sort of gives it away.
The Rmail case – or at least part of it – apparently settled late Sunday evening, but it’s never too late to see what can be gleaned from the most recent batch of pretrial rulings on expert motions and motions in limine.
Prior to holding a hearing on seventeen dispositive motions and 62 disputed limine motions, the Court issued this order resolving seven of the motions, all addressed to expert testimony.
Another interesting case from the birthplace of Dr Pepper, which has since decamped to the Eastern District of Texas, first as part of Snapple (to Plano) and now as part of Keurig Dr Pepper (to the Star in Frisco). Anyway, this case involves a plaintiff attempting to switch damages experts midstream because of a payment dispute.
I don’t mean to sound like I don’t like these orders because I do – they’re always informative and provide a useful explanation of what precisely about a damages expert’s opinion is and is not admissible. So let’s see what this opinion can tell us about the not particularly common application of the Panduit factors relevant to claims of lost profits.
As I posted several months ago, and more recently in connection with a recent decision, last year’s EDTX rule changes included a new requirement regarding expert disclosure at the P.R. 4-3 stage. We now have a second opinion interpreting the new provision in light of a dispute that has arisen over it.