View by Topic
Evidentiary Issues > Experts
United States Gypsum Co. v. Lafarge North America Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99773 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2009).
Plaintiff's computer forensics expert was allowed to testify regarding steps taken by plaintiff to protect its electronically stored trade secrets, and defendant's computer forensics expert was allowed to provide his opinion concerning "intrinsic weaknesses" he perceived in the reports of plaintiff's expert. However, both experts were barred from offering opinions as to intent of the parties in handling electronic information.
Plaintiff's computer forensics expert was allowed to testify regarding steps taken by plaintiff to protect its electronically stored trade secrets, and defendant's computer forensics expert was allowed to provide his opinion concerning "intrinsic weaknesses" he perceived in the reports of plaintiff's expert. However, both experts were barred from offering opinions as to intent of the parties in handling electronic information.
Kendrick v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126638 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2009).
Defendant's Daubert challenge to plaintiff's expert in support of class certification was denied. The expert's opinion was limited to the question whether data supplied by defendants was compatible with geocoding software and did not address whether any particular software was accurate.
Defendant's Daubert challenge to plaintiff's expert in support of class certification was denied. The expert's opinion was limited to the question whether data supplied by defendants was compatible with geocoding software and did not address whether any particular software was accurate.
Kayongo-Male v. South Dakota State University, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51602 (D.S.D. Jul. 3, 2008).
Plaintiff’s motion to strike testimony of defendant’s expert, who allegedly used regression analyses of defendant rather than his own regression analysis, was denied. However, defendant was ordered to produce an electronic copy of the raw data from defendant’s database that the expert used to conduct his own analysis.
Plaintiff’s motion to strike testimony of defendant’s expert, who allegedly used regression analyses of defendant rather than his own regression analysis, was denied. However, defendant was ordered to produce an electronic copy of the raw data from defendant’s database that the expert used to conduct his own analysis.
Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86328 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2008).
After a Daubert hearing on the qualifications of the parties’ computer forensics experts, the court excluded testimony of an expert that a particular program to wipe data had been downloaded, installed, and used on a laptop computer. Although the laptop had large blocks of “zeros” that the expert theorized could have been created by use of a secure delete function of the program, the version of the program placed on the laptop did not have a secure delete function.
After a Daubert hearing on the qualifications of the parties’ computer forensics experts, the court excluded testimony of an expert that a particular program to wipe data had been downloaded, installed, and used on a laptop computer. Although the laptop had large blocks of “zeros” that the expert theorized could have been created by use of a secure delete function of the program, the version of the program placed on the laptop did not have a secure delete function.
Simon Prop. Group L.P. v. MySimon, Inc., 194 F.R.D. 639, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8950, 47 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 247, 54 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 604 (S.D. Ind. June 7, 2000), Motion for New Trial Granted, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5438 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 26, 2003).
Plaintiff allowed to recover deleted computer files in computers used by defendant's employees, but protective measures would be taken, including appointment of an expert to copy information.
Plaintiff allowed to recover deleted computer files in computers used by defendant's employees, but protective measures would be taken, including appointment of an expert to copy information.
