Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
December 9, 2015, Decided; December 9, 2015, Filed
Case No. 1:07-cv-01314-SAB
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT REPORT AND TESTIMONY OF DR. DANNA MOORE
ECF No. 546
On October 19, 2015, Defendants Taco Bell Corp. and Taco Bell of America, Inc. ("Defendants") filed a motion to exclude Plaintiffs' expert reports and testimony of Dr. Danna Moore. (ECF No. 546).
The hearing on Defendants' motion to exclude Plaintiffs' expert reports and testimony of Dr. Danna Moore took place on December 2, 2015. Matthew Theriault and Andrew Sokolowski appeared in person and Monica Balderrama, Jerusalem Beligan, and Patrick Clifford appeared by telephone on behalf of Plaintiffs. Tracy Kennedy, Morgan Forsey, Nora Stiles, and John Makarewich appeared in person and Jason Overett appeared by telephone on behalf of Defendants. [*3] For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendants' motions to exclude Plaintiffs' expert report and testimony of Dr. Danna Moore.
Expert witnesses in federal litigation are governed by Rules 702 to 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 702 provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165235 *
SANDRIKA MEDLOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TACO BELL CORP., et al., Defendants.
Subsequent History: Summary judgment denied by Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167164 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2015)
Prior History: Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118642 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 3, 2015)
bias, questions, meal, nonresponse, rest break, surveys, reliability, scientific, responses, motion to exclude, weighting, answers, class member, principles, validate, expert report, declaration, scheduling, employees, breaks, expert testimony, meal period, experiences, centers, testing, Matrix, Wallet, random, Card