If you have any doubt as to how important a federal appellate court considers the gatekeeping responsibility with which a district court is charged under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, look no further than a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
A Colorado federal district judge recently excluded certain testimony offered by an attorney serving as an expert witness, finding that the attorney-expert will not be allowed to testify where his opinions would usurp the role of the court in deciding which legal principles govern or dictate to the jury how it should find on certain issues.
A September 3rd ruling out of a district court in the N.D. of Illinois serves as a reminder that although a party has a duty to supplement or correct an expert disclosure under FRCP 26, untimely supplements that espouse new theories of the case, sending it on a different course altogether, will not be tolerated, at least under these circumstances.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has issued what may be the final chapter in a lingering copyright dispute involving heirs of famed comic book artist Jack Kirby and works he allegedly produced half a century ago, some of which have perhaps contributed to pop culture’s most recognizable – and lucrative – comic heroes.
A magistrate judge out of a Delaware federal district court has rejected an expert challenge and granted class certification in a securities suit alleging fraud, recklessness, and materially false and misleading statements in connection with a $400 million shareholder-approved merger that allegedly went awry.