Legal Opinion
Lindland v. TuSimple, Inc.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided October 20, 2022No. 3:21-cv-00417Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN LINDLAND, Case No.: 3:21-cv-00417-RBM-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF 13 v. JOHN LINDLAND’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF 14 TUSIMPLE, INC., et al., DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS 15 Defendants. RICHARD HOLSTROM 16 [Doc. 32] 17 18 On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff John Lindland (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to exclude 19 the testimony of Defendant TuSimple, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) expert witness Richard 20 Holstrom under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (“Motion”). (Doc. 32 (hereinafter “Mot.”).) 21 Defendant…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Joan Hangarter v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, and the Paul Revere Life Insurance Company Unumprovident Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Primiano v. CookCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- City of Pomona v. Sqm North America CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.