This article explains how courtroom visualizations have become an essential tool for helping attorneys and their clients, juries, and judges understand complex technical evidence in accident reconstruction and other...more
In Qasim v. Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 21-18744, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5064, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey considered whether the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinions were admissible...more
In August 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to exclude an expert’s causation opinion as unreliable and grant summary judgment in favor of a herbicide manufacturer.The case, which arose from claims...more
Last week, the Fourth Circuit denied defendants' petition for rehearing in Sommerville v. Union Carbide, a proposed class action for medical monitoring for alleged exposure to emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO). The denial of...more
The Georgia Court of Appeals issued a decision on October 31, 2025, addressing the reliability and admissibility of expert testimony on general causation in toxic tort cases in Georgia. See Sterigenics US LLC. Mutz, No....more
In a notable ruling for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s decision to exclude a plaintiff’s expert witness and deny...more
Davis v. Capital One, N.A., No. 24-1507, 2025 WL 2445880 (4th Cir. Aug. 25, 2025). Background. Defendant made prerecorded calls to Plaintiff, a non-customer, attempting to reach a customer that had provided consent...more
In a mixed ruling on evidentiary exclusions and damages methodology, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a district court’s decision that excluded...more
Complex damages analyses require skilled professionals who understand the law and facts of each case to navigate to success. The Federal Circuit’s recent en banc ruling in EcoFactor v. Google reiterates that point. The...more
In an en banc decision in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from a damages expert that a lump-sum...more
EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1101 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025) In its first en banc decision of the year, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s admission of expert testimony concerning damages,...more
Last week, in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit issued its first en banc decision in a utility patent case in several years. The case involves the gatekeeping function of district courts vis-à-vis expert...more
In a significant decision for plaintiffs litigating traumatic brain injury (TBI) claims, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma has denied a defense motion to exclude expert testimony based on diffusion...more
Identifying junk science is merely the first step of the battle when considering argument approach and courtroom strategy. With this in mind, the main goals are to keep junk science out of the courtroom and, of course, win...more
The district court erred by admitting untimely expert testimony on noninfringement and by refusing to grant a new trial after the jury found noninfringement. Trudell Medical International (“Trudell”) sued D R Burton...more
Here at Bradley we frequently represent clients pursuing or opposing claims for lost productivity on construction jobs. The gist of those claims is that something happened which decreased productivity and thereby increased...more
Class certification decisions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mark a critical stage in any putative class action lawsuit. Rule 23(a) requires plaintiffs to prove, among other things, that “there are...more
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires parties to disclose the opinions of experts who may present evidence at trial. If the disclosures are inadequate, Rule 37(c) requires exclusion of the opinions “unless the...more
In June 2024, a California jury awarded plaintiffs nearly $4.8 billion in an antitrust class action against the National Football League (NFL) and DirecTV. In the case, In re National Football League's "Sunday Ticket"...more
Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 govern the admissibility of lay and expert opinion testimony, respectively, in federal courts. Rule 701(c) helps paint the line between the two, providing that an opinion “based on...more
In December 2023, back when the ink was still drying on the amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Southern District of New York excluded all five general causation experts proffered by plaintiffs in the In re...more
It has now been over six months since the amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 regarding the admissibility of expert testimony went into effect on Dec. 1, 2023....more
When tasked with assessing the admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, courts often cite the so-called Daubert factors as criteria that guide the inquiry. Among those factors is “whether the...more
In explaining the December 2023 amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Advisory Committee called out several ways in which “many courts” had “incorrectly” applied Rule 702 and failed to adequately discharge their...more
Consumer perception evidence is necessary for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in a false advertising class action, but vacillating and flawed connections between the evidence and the key question of what a reasonable...more