Time to break out the popcorn – more claims that damages experts’ opinions should be excluded.
In this case, the argument is lack of reliability under FRE 702. The opinion itself is an alluring target for Ctrl+C as it lays out all the relevant standards in a snug, yet thorough two pages before going into the specific arguments made by the movant.
The specific arguments dealt with alleged guesswork on the calculations, unreliable apportionment, more unreliable apportionment but this time by a different damages expert, and an alleged face plant, methodologically speaking, on assessment of prior agreements. Judge Payne concluded that none of the complaints justified exclusion, and I recommend the analysis to you because it identifies which arguments are not likely to fly when objecting to damages testimony.
© 2020 Michael C. Smith. Use limited to individual subscribers. Further distribution prohibited.
This blog does not constitute legal advice. If you’d like to discuss a related legal matter, please contact Michael C. Smith via email or call 903-938-8900.