© D.L. Crumbley
Admissibility affirmed. Exxon complains that expert had no specialized knowledge of petroleum pricing and employed flawed methodology. But district court conducted six-day Daubert hearing exhaustively canvassing reliability issues, and expert was fully subject to cross-examination. No abuse of discretion.
Allapattah Servs v. Exxon Corp., 333 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2003)
Exclusion affirmed. Expert exhibited “utter lack of any familiarity, knowledge, or experience with damage analysis;” his methods were “misleading, not reliable, and unsupported by use in any other comparable setting” and did not fit facts of case, and his testimony would have confused jury rather than assisting it.
Lifewise Master Funding v. Telebank, No. 03-4086 (10th Cir. June 29, 2004)
On trial for filing false tax returns, defendants offers “tax expert” to testify that she was not required to report certain income on personal return. District court excludes testimony. Exclusion affirmed. Proposed testimony represented legal conclusion, and it is judge’s role to instruct jury on law.
United States v. Rosales, No. 00-50272 (9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2001) (unpublished).