Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantlitigationtestimonymotionrelevance

defendanttestimonymotion

Related Cases

In re Refco Inc. Securities Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 7007795

Facts

The litigation centers around allegations that PwC and Grant Thornton aided and abetted the Refco Fraud. The plaintiffs had previously made various claims against these defendants, but many were dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims involve allegations that PwC and Grant Thornton provided substantial assistance in concealing the fraud through their auditing and advisory roles. The court had to determine which expert opinions were relevant to the surviving claims and which were related to dismissed claims.

The remaining claims against these Defendants involve their alleged aiding and abetting the presentation of the false financial picture that Refco projected.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether certain expert opinions should be struck because they pertained to claims that had already been dismissed with prejudice.

The only ground for striking here is that an opinion 'relates to dismissed claims.'

Rule

Under Fed. R. Evid. 702, expert testimony must be relevant and helpful to the trier of fact, meaning it must 'fit' the facts of the case and assist in resolving a factual dispute.

To be admissible under Fed. R.Evid. 702, an expert's testimony must 'fit' the facts of the case.

Analysis

The court analyzed the expert opinions in light of the claims that remained versus those that had been dismissed. It found that opinions addressing the merits of dismissed claims did not meet the relevance requirement of Rule 702 and should be excluded. However, opinions that related to the surviving claims were deemed relevant and admissible. The court emphasized that expert testimony should not attempt to relitigate issues that had already been decided.

The expert opinions here, to the extent they evaluate the merits of dismissed claims, are simply seeking to relitigate adverse determinations rendered by the court in this case.

Conclusion

The court granted the motion to strike certain expert opinions while allowing others to stand, reinforcing the principle that expert testimony must be pertinent to the claims still in dispute.

The court's final decision was that the expert testimony must be limited to issues that have not been dismissed.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the defendants, PwC and Grant Thornton, as the court granted their motion to strike certain expert opinions that were deemed irrelevant to the remaining claims.

The prevailing party was the defendants, as the court granted their motion to strike certain expert opinions that were deemed irrelevant.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Chrispens v. Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc., 257 Kan. 745, 897 P.2d 104

Shimko v. Lobe, 103 Ohio St.3d 59, 813 N.E.2d 669, 2004 -Ohio- 4202

Poats v. Givan, 651 F.2d 495

In re Pacific Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5179, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6177

Lane v. Sharp Packaging Systems, Inc., 251 Wis.2d 68, 2002 WI 28, 640 N.W.2d 788