Holding that "the district court must consider whether the testimony will assist the trier of fact with its analysis of any of the issues involved in the case"
Holding that expert testimony was reliable and properly disclosed when his "supplemental expert report, combined with his original expert report, gave [the opposing party] sufficient information . . . ."
Holding that a medical expert's testimony should have been admitted because it could help the jury infer causation even though the expert did not "have an opinion on that ultimate question"
Holding inadmissible testimony of an IRS agent regarding the purpose of a transaction; "[m]uch of [his] testimony consists of nothing more than drawing inferences from the evidence that he was no more qualified than the jury to draw."
Holding expert who had "extensive academic and practical expertise" in designing employment evaluations was sufficiently qualified to render opinion on validity of promotion examination
979 F. Supp. 2d 787 (N.D. Ill. 2013) Cited 37 times
Finding that an expert who was qualified to conduct a technical review nevertheless lacked the "requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to consider the multitude of intervening factors" relevant to some of the opinions he proffered, and barred those opinions
Case No: 00 C 0718 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2001) Cited 34 times
Granting summary judgment as to the plaintiffs' claim for "damages for risk of future harm" because "it is impossible to determine without speculation what sort of injury—if any—[would occur]"