-
May 05, 2026
NEW ORLEANS — A Louisiana federal judge on May 4 ruled that an expert can testify about the relative safety of a speed bump that a woman allegedly tripped over in a Costco parking lot and denied the store’s motion for summary judgment.
-
May 01, 2026
PHILADELPHIA — Experts retained by the estate of a man killed during a workplace accident can testify on the decedent’s pain and suffering and the economic impact his death had on his family, a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge held in separate April 30 orders, rejecting calls from a machine’s manufacturer to exclude their testimony as inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
-
May 01, 2026
AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a forensic psychologist expert from testifying for a man charged with murder and aggravated assault following “a melee” in a bar’s parking lot, a Texas appeals court ruled April 30, finding that Texas law bars expert testimony on intoxication to negate mens rea.
-
April 30, 2026
WILMINGTON, N.C. — A federal judge in North Carolina has partially granted and partially denied a motion by E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. and two affiliates to exclude a plaintiffs’ expert in a consolidated class action alleging injuries from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), finding that she is unqualified to offer some of her opinions but rejecting the defendants’ argument that all of her opinions related to air and water modeling should be excluded.
-
April 30, 2026
CINCINNATI — A former insurance claims adjuster can offer expert testimony for a construction company that its insurer violated accepted practices and standards in the insurance industry and acted in bad faith by denying the company coverage for negligence cases it faced after a landslide, an Ohio federal judge ruled April 29.
-
April 27, 2026
NEW ORLEANS — The Louisiana federal judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation involving cases alleging that a chemotherapy drug caused eye injuries on April 24 denied a motion filed by the manufacturer to exclude an expert retained by the plaintiffs from testifying and agreed to limit what the manufacturer’s expert can opine about in relation to the label on the drug.
-
April 22, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Union Carbide Corp. and an affiliate on April 21 filed a reply brief in support of their petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it should review a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinion pertaining to the correct legal standard for the admissibility of an expert in an ethylene oxide (EtO) injury case because the appellate court “continues to apply the toothless standard for admitting expert testimony that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was amended in 2023 to repudiate.”
-
April 21, 2026
Entries are in alphabetical order of the expert in each area of expert testimony. Experts appeared in the January, February, March and April 2026 issue of Mealey’s Daubert Report.
-
April 21, 2026
LAFAYETTE, La. — A Louisiana federal court jury returned a verdict finding a former deputy U.S. Marshal guilty of violating a prisoner’s constitutional rights by subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment during an assault and falsifying records; the verdict came days after the judge presiding over the case ruled that the defendant’s expert could not testify on proper use of force and whether the victim posed an imminent physical threat to the defendant.
-
April 21, 2026
ORLANDO, Fla. — A Florida federal judge ruled that an expert retained to opine on what caused a man to fall outside of a convenience store cannot testify because his conclusions that the lack of nonskid additive in the paint on the curb of the sidewalk created a dangerous situation are unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
-
April 21, 2026
JACKSON, Miss. — A Mississippi trial court was within its discretion when it excluded testimony from an expert in a medical malpractice suit and granted summary judgment to the doctor, a split Mississippi Supreme Court said in reversing a state appellate court ruling that said the expert’s testimony was admissible.
-
April 21, 2026
SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge denied a motion to exclude an expert from testifying in support of a class certification motion in a Sherman Act antitrust suit filed against Amazon.com Inc., noting that the court in a similar case ruled that the expert’s testimony is admissible.
-
April 20, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 20 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., which argued that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in granting certification to a class action and that the high court must rule on whether experts must be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for class certification motions.
-
April 17, 2026
CHICAGO — Allowing a fingerprint analyst to testify for the government in a criminal drug and firearm case was not an abuse of discretion, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said, affirming a conviction.
-
April 17, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that a lower court erred in granting a company summary judgment on a negligence claim in a slip-and-fall case because “the expert testimony created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the walkway was dangerously slippery.”
-
April 10, 2026
CINCINNATI — An engineer retained by a woman who says she was injured on an escalator at a Dick’s Sporting Goods store “is unqualified to testify on escalator maintenance and offered unreliable methodologies to support testimony that will not assist a trier of fact,” an Ohio federal judge said in granting the company’s motion to exclude the testimony.
-
April 08, 2026
BURLINGTON, Vt. — A federal judge in Vermont on April 7 denied Monsanto Co.’s motion to exclude the opinions of two experts for the Burlington School District (BSD) in its lawsuit alleging contamination from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), saying that he found no reason to exclude their opinions because they are based on Monsanto’s own statements about its responsibilities to protect consumers and the planet. He also said the opinions in question “appear to be supported by a substantial documentary record.”
-
April 08, 2026
SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah federal judge ruled that an expert retained by a woman suing her doctor and his medical group for medical malpractice during her pregnancy that she alleges resulted in brain injuries to her child may opine on standards of care but is unqualified to offer an opinion on what caused those injuries; the judge also denied a separate motion to exclude testimony from three other experts on the costs to care for the child after finding that any late disclosures of evidence regarding those costs are unprejudicial and do not warrant exclusion.
-
April 08, 2026
DETROIT — A Michigan federal judge agreed to grant the United States summary judgment in a personal injury case stemming from a vehicle accident with a mail truck after finding that the man’s claims are impermissible under the Michigan’s No-Fault Act and that testimony from his expert is inadmissible under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
-
April 08, 2026
MIAMI — The report of an expert retained by homeowners who sued their insurer for failing to pay for damages to a roof allegedly caused by a hurricane was improperly excluded by a trial court that considered “the weight of the evidence rather than a threshold examination of the qualifications, methodology and conclusions of the expert,” a Florida appellate court held.
-
April 07, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court should not hear Union Carbide Corp.’s petition for review of a federal appellate court opinion in a dispute over the correct legal standard for the admissibility of an expert in an ethylene oxide (EtO) injury case because “there is no fissure” between the circuit courts in their application of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the respondent argues in a brief filed April 6.
-
April 03, 2026
BURLINGTON, Vt. — A Vermont federal judge was unconvinced by arguments from Monsanto Co. that experts retained by the Burlington School District (BSD) should be excluded from testifying in support of the school district’s lawsuit alleging contamination from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
-
April 02, 2026
PHOENIX — A biomaterials scientist retained by the plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation involving C.R. Bard Inc.’s implanted port catheter (IPC) device can largely offer her opinions on design defects but cannot opine that a certain defect led to a risk of infection, the judge overseeing the MDL said after finding that the scientist’s testimony meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
-
April 01, 2026
PENSACOLA, Fla. — The Florida federal judge overseeing the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation for cases alleging that a long-lasting injectable contraceptive caused women to develop intracranial meningiomas, a type of brain tumor, ordered that a notice filed by law firm Keller Postman LLC asking that the court reconsider its decision to hold joint hearings with state courts on the admissibility of expert witnesses be stricken sua sponte.
-
April 01, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An amicus curiae public interest law firm argues in its March 31 brief that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should grant a petition for rehearing en banc by DePuy Synthes Sales Inc. and related DePuy entities, echoing DePuy’s claims that a split panel’s decision to reverse a Pennsylvania federal court’s exclusion of two expert witnesses’ testimony on induced infringement constitutes a departure from recent Federal Circuit en banc precedent.