-
May 22, 2026
TRENTON, N.J. — The special master involved in the federal multidistrict asbestos-talc ovarian cancer litigation said she would allow supplemental briefing on a trio of plaintiff-side specific causation experts after Johnson & Johnson entities complained about mid-hearing changes to opinions that altered the scope of the litigation. Among the complaints were that one of the experts used artificial intelligence on the stand, which required the special master to admonish the witness.
-
May 22, 2026
PHILADELPHIA — There was no abuse of discretion in excluding an expert in a slip-and-fall case after finding that the expert based his opinions on the store’s condition two years after the incident and that his testimony would not assist a jury, a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held, affirming a defense jury verdict for Walmart Inc.
-
May 22, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 21 affirmed a Delaware federal judge’s finding that a biopharmaceutical company’s patents related to a medication to treat kidney disease were not infringed by other biopharmaceutical companies’ filing for approval of a generic version of the drug by adding more than the claimed amount of a specific molecule to the generic version.
-
May 20, 2026
NEW ORLEANS — A defense expert may testify that a man suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in addition to other asbestos-related illnesses, a federal judge in Louisiana said May 19 in denying a motion to exclude. In other developments, the court announced that the man had settled with Shell USA Inc. and asked the court to reconsider summary judgment on a nonintentional tort claim, and the parties wrapped briefing on a plaintiff expert’s “contaminated house” testimony.
-
May 18, 2026
ST. PAUL, Minn. — A Minnesota appellate court on May 15 reversed a summary judgment award for a dentist in a malpractice suit after finding that a lower court erred in finding that a man’s expert’s affidavit did not meet the statutory requirements for a dental malpractice suit and that the expert’s testimony was inadmissible.
-
May 15, 2026
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge ordered the government and two men charged with wire fraud to supplement their expert report disclosures in partially granting a motion to exclude the defendants’ expert witnesses, finding that he needs more information as to what the experts will testify about at trial.
-
May 13, 2026
OAKLAND, Calif. — A couple and the two remaining defendants in a Los Angeles asbestos case told the judge overseeing the litigation that they reached a settlement resolving the case. The judge previously limited the testimony defense experts could give about the plaintiff’s previous radiation treatments.
-
May 07, 2026
HUNTINGTON, W.Va. — Testimony from an expert retained by a man who sued his former employer will not assist a jury in determining whether the man was fired in retaliation for using leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), a West Virginia federal judge said in a May 7 order granting a motion to exclude his testimony.
-
May 06, 2026
CHICAGO — A widow who alleges that an insurance company wrongfully denied her claim for the proceeds from her husband’s life insurance policy cannot present testimony from an insurance industry expert after a federal judge in Illinois found his testimony unreliable and irrelevant.
-
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.