CFM COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. Mitts Telecasting Company
District Court, E.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DESIGNATION OF DEFENDANT’S EXPERT AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT’S EXPERT AT TRIAL. (Doc.67)
COYLE, District Judge.
On October 3, 2005, the Court heard oral argument regarding Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Designation of Defendant’s Expert and to Exclude Testimony of Defendant’s Expert at Trial. Upon due consideration of the written and oral arguments of the parties and the record herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion as set forth below.
I. Factual Background
Pappas…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Bourjaily v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Luce v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jackson v. County of San BernardinoDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2016
- A.B. v. County of San DiegoDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
- A.B. v. County of San DiegoDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
- Escobar v. European Aeronautic Defence and Space CompanyDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2020
- Unigestion Holding, S.A. v. UPM Technology, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2022