Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.

3 Citing briefs

  1. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company v. Tci Pacific Communications, Inc. et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed July 22, 2016

    Another key consideration when determining whether a plaintiff can establish evidence of a “plausible” migration pathway is whether the alleged pathway must be supported by expert evidence. In Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 629 F.Supp.2d 175 (D.Conn. 2009), the plaintiff discovered PCBs on its property and initiated a CERCLA action against the defendant, alleging that PCB’s from the defendant’s property caused it to incur response costs. See id.

  2. In Re: Pfizer Securities Litigation

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 139 MOTION to Preclude Plaintiffs From Offering Testimony or Opinions From Their Experts.. Document

    Filed July 17, 2009

    The district courts in this Circuit consistently have adhered to this mandate by excluding proposed expert testimony that lacks sufficient indicia of reliability. See Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., No. 3:06cv1352, 2009 WL 1834244, at *14 (D. Conn. June 26, 2009) (excluding proposed expert testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence where “the opinions are neither ‘based on sufficient facts or data’ nor ‘the product of reliable principles and methods’”); Kass v. West Bend Co., No. 02-CV-3719, 2004 WL 2475606, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2004) (“While the plaintiffs contend that any flaws in [the expert’s] testimony should go to the weight of the proffered evidence, rather than its admissibility, there is simply too great an analytical gap between [the expert’s] unreliable methodology and untested theories and the conclusions he reaches in his report”), aff’d, 158 Fed. Appx. 352 (2d Cir. 2005); Algarin v. New York City Dep’t of Corr., 460 F. Supp. 2d 469, 476-78 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (excluding doctor’s proposed expert testimony because he “never articulate[d], in any legally cognizable way, what are the standards,” and failed to use “any reliable principle or methodology”), aff’d, 267 Fed. Appx. 24 (2d Cir. 2008); Playtex Prods

  3. Sullivan et al v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Testimony

    Filed February 25, 2019

    His modeling was used to confirm his 29 The two cases cited by Saint-Gobain have nothing to do with air modeling or consideration of speculative alternative explanations for other potential sources. Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 175, 190 (D. Conn. 2009), says nothing about air models. Matosky v. Manning, 428 F. App’x 293, 298 (5th Cir. 2011), was a medical malpractice case dealing with alternative causes of illness.