© D.L. Crumbley
Successful Daubert Challenges
Accountant failed to incorporate into his opinion (without explanation) some of his findings that contradicted his testimony [similar to Kumho Tire engineering expert’s testimony]. Target Marketing Pub., Inc. v. ADVD, Inc., 136 F.3d 1139 (CA-7, 1998).
Accountant testified from un-audited financial reports, did not analyze data covering the entire period of time in question, did not compare revenue to budget projections of revenue, and allowed his opinion to be influenced by subjective statements of an interested party.
SEC v. Lipson, 46 F.Supp.2d 758 (N.D. Ill.1998).
In comparing hosiery made by different manufacturers, expert relied upon an inadequate sample and destroyed the records of his methodology.
Lithuania Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee Hosiery, 179 F.R.D. 450 (D.N.J. 1998)