Daubert Watch 10.04.06
Court excludes economist testimony for using wrong data
Champagne Metals vs. Ken-Mac Metals, Inc.
Date of Decision: 8/7/2006, Federal 04-6222 & 05-6139, 10th Circuit
Area of Law: Antitrust & Trade Reg.
Source: http://www.dauberttracker.com/
Plaintiff, Champagne Metals, an aluminum distributor, sued defendants Ken-Mac Metals, Inc., et al, other aluminum distributors in the industry. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants agreed amongst themselves to exclude new competitors in the aluminum industry and violated federal and state antitrust laws.
The plaintiff proffered the testimony of an economic antitrust expert. The expert opined that the defendants' threat to shift their business away from a mill would amount to a credible threat because the defendants had sufficient market power in the upstream market. The trial court excluded the testimony of the economist on the ground that his analysis and conclusions were inexplicably based on the wrong data. According to the court there was not sufficient explantion in his report as to why the economist built his analysis on data from the downstream market instead of the upstream market for aluminum.
On appeal the appellate court held that the trial court's decision to exclude the economist's testimony was not arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or manifestly unreasonable. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.
Champagne Metals vs. Ken-Mac Metals, Inc.
Date of Decision: 8/7/2006, Federal 04-6222 & 05-6139, 10th Circuit
Area of Law: Antitrust & Trade Reg.
Source: http://www.dauberttracker.com/
Plaintiff, Champagne Metals, an aluminum distributor, sued defendants Ken-Mac Metals, Inc., et al, other aluminum distributors in the industry. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants agreed amongst themselves to exclude new competitors in the aluminum industry and violated federal and state antitrust laws.
The plaintiff proffered the testimony of an economic antitrust expert. The expert opined that the defendants' threat to shift their business away from a mill would amount to a credible threat because the defendants had sufficient market power in the upstream market. The trial court excluded the testimony of the economist on the ground that his analysis and conclusions were inexplicably based on the wrong data. According to the court there was not sufficient explantion in his report as to why the economist built his analysis on data from the downstream market instead of the upstream market for aluminum.
On appeal the appellate court held that the trial court's decision to exclude the economist's testimony was not arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or manifestly unreasonable. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.
Labels: Daubert
posted by The Experts @ 11:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home