Legal Opinion

Van Loo v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided March 4, 2025No. 3:23-cv-05618Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CINDY VAN LOO, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05618-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 12 v. AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE (DKT. 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., NOS. 120, 122) 14 Defendant. 15 16 I INTRODUCTION 17 Before the Court is the Federal Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiff’s experts Joel 18 Newman, Kenton Wong, and Russell Hicks (Dkt. No. 120) and Plaintiff’s motion to exclude 19 Defendants’ expert Paul Massock (Dkt. No. 122.) The Court GRANTS the motions in part and 20 DENIES in part.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Hinkle v. City of ClarksburgCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
  4. Maria Elosu v. Middlefork Ranch IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
  5. Scott v. RossCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API