In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation

61 Citing briefs

  1. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Exclude / Warner Chilcott's Motion to Exclude the Declaration and Testimony of Expert Gordon Rausser [Redacted Public Version] re, 236 MOTION to Exclude [Public Redacted Version] re: 262 REPLY

    Filed July 26, 2013

    Dr. Rausser’s cherry picking of a few projections to try and buttress his original assumption42—and his misrepresentation of Dr. Jasti’s testimony43—cannot stand in the face of these actual market facts 42 See WC Daubert Reply (Leitzinger) at V.B (discussing projections) 43 Case 2:12-cv-03824-PD Document 389 Filed 07/26/13 Page 47 of 56 42 to the contrary. See In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d at 773; see also Snodgrass v. Ford Motor Co., No. 96-1814, 2002 WL 485688, at *12 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2002) (granting motion in limine to exclude plaintiff’s expert’s testimony, which was based on incorrect assumptions and on “subjective inclusion and exclusion of data [, which] suggest[s] that [the plaintiff’s expert] manipulated the data to achieve a desired result.”).

  2. Marcia L. Caronia, Linda McAuley and Arlene Feldman, Appellants,v.Philip Morris USA, Inc., Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed May 30, 2013

    However, the 16 courts that have recognized a medical monitoring tort have construed it in effect to confer standing on any and all persons in the vicinity of a toxic chemical to challenge, if they wish, the conduct of whomever they deem responsible for the presence of the chemical. See, e.g., Paoli II, 35 F.3d at 793; Redland Soccer, 55 F.3d at 847. Thus, if medical monitoring in the absence of symptomatic injury or harm is accepted as a theory of recovery, the minimal requirements it imposes will combine with the ready availability of plaintiffs to encourage frequent and potentially abusive lawsuits.

  3. Maldonado v. Federal Express Corporation

    Opposition to Motion re MOTION Defendant's Motion to Exclude Testimony and Expert Report of Lisa Fontes

    Filed May 31, 2019

    “The inquiry into methodology is designed to ensure that an expert's opinions are based upon “‘methods and procedures of science’ rather than on subjective belief or unsupported speculation; the expert must have ‘good grounds’ for his or his belief.” Paoli, 35 F.3d at 742. When an expert’s testimony is not strictly scientific, but rather based on training and experience, it is appropriate to ask whether the expert’s methods are consistent with the standards of his field.

  4. Maldonado v. Federal Express Corporation

    MOTION Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Exclude Testimony and Expert Report of Lisa Fontes

    Filed April 29, 2019

    Fontes’ report lacks reliability in reaching her conclusions. As to the reliability of the expert and report, courts look to these factors: (1) whether a method consists of a testable hypothesis; (2) whether the method has been subjected to peer review; (3) the known or potential rate of error; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; (5) whether the method is generally accepted; (6) the relationship of the technique to methods which have been established to be reliable; (7) the qualifications of the expert witness testifying based on the methodology; and (8) the non-judicial uses to which the method has been put. Oddi v. Ford Motor Co., 234 F.3d 136, 145 (3rd Cir. 2000), citing Daubert at 597, Case: 1:17-cv-00039-WAL-GWC Document #: 126 Filed: 04/29/19 Page 12 of 20 13 United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1985); In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d at 742 n. 8. In Oddi, admissibility depends in part upon "the proffered connection between the scientific research or test result to be presented and particular disputed factual issues in the case," meaning the test of admissibility is not whether a particular scientific opinion has the best foundation or whether it is demonstrably correct.

  5. Ford et al v. Ford Motor Company et al

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed April 3, 2017

    In the Third Circuit, an expert’s qualification should be assessed “liberally” and that “a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert as such.” In re Paoli, supra, 35 F.3d at 741. As detailed above, Mr. Zazula’s opinion is about corrosion rates on the body or chassis of a car when exposed to a fire.

  6. Brown, et al v. American Home Prod, et al

    MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SEPARATE PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 8933 RE: WYETH'S MOTION FILED IN THE JAMIE D. CHEEK AND VALERIE FARMER CASES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 8/30/2012; 8/30/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED TO LIAISON COUNSEL.

    Filed August 30, 2012

    A differential diagnosis is a reliable method of demonstrating causation under Daubert because such a method "consists of a testable hypothesis," has been peer reviewed, and is generally accepted. See Heller, 167 F.3d at 156; Paoli, 35 F.3d at 758-59. In their diagnoses, Dr. Rich and Dr. Rubin have excluded all other known causes of PPH.

  7. SMITH v. CHS., INC., et al

    MOTION in Limine Motion in Limine for Frye hearing regarding Dr. Brill and Dr. Younkin

    Filed February 20, 2008

    The nonexclusive guidelines, drawn from Daubert and the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's opinion in United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir.1985), include: (1) whether a method consists of a testable hypothesis; (2) whether the method has been subject to peer review; (3) the known or potential rate of error; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; (5) whether the method is generally accepted; (6) the relationship of the technique to methods which have been established to be reliable; (7) the qualifications of the expert witness testifying based on the methodology; and Case 3:03-cv-05519-JAP-TJB Document 100 Filed 02/20/08 Page 9 of 15 (8) the non-judicial uses to which the method has been put. Paoli, 35 F.3d at 742 n. 8 (citing Daubert and Downing). 37.

  8. USA v. Safavian

    Memorandum in Opposition

    Filed June 1, 2006

    Doubts about whether to admit expert testimony should be resolved in favor of admission. Paoli, 35 F.3d at 745 (the helpfulness/relevance should be considered with a preference toward admission); Hartzler v. Wiley, 277 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1116 (D. Kan. 2003). Indeed, “the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.”

  9. Gusinsky v. Barclays PLC et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 157 MOTION to Preclude the Expert Opinions of John D. Finnerty. . Document

    Filed July 9, 2015

    ’” Id. (quoting Paoli, 35 F.3d at 742). In any event, Defendants’ complaints about Dr. Finnerty’s reliance on analyst reports is belied by their own expert, Dr. Gompers, who has reviewed analyst reports as part of his event study analyses in at least one other case.19 Moreover, a similar methodology was recently approved in Brown v. China Integrated Energy, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19177 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2015).

  10. Shockley, et al v. Adams Golf Inc., et al

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION Exclude Expert Opinion of R. Alan Miller

    Filed October 30, 2006

    In Paoli, the defendants were provided with the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion and all of the supporting details “60 days before the deadline the district court had set for ending discovery.” 35 F.3d at 792. Here, in contrast, expert discovery closed on August 11, 2006 (the day of Miller’s deposition).