Jump to Navigation | Jump to Content
American Bar Association

 

So You Think You're an Expert on Experts?

By Jason Elster – October 15, 2014


So you think you’re an expert on experts? Test your knowledge on some of the most influential cases involving expert witnesses by taking our quiz. Answers to the quiz can be found at the bottom of the page. Good luck!


1. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, on what grounds did the United States Court of Appeals conclude that the plaintiff's expert testimony was inadmissible?

A. It did not meet the "general acceptance" requirement.
B. Its assumptions were not tested using scientific methodology.
C. The data used to support the expert's opinion was invalid.
D. The expert's experience was not directly relevant to the case.


2. Under the "fraud-on-the-market" theory endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, if an investor suffered losses from material misrepresented information by a public company, the investor must prove reliance on the misrepresentations if the security is traded in an efficient market.


A. True
B. False


3. Per Matrixx, which of the following must be proved by a plaintiff to show a violation of SEC Rule 10b-5:


A. A material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant
B. Scienter
C. A connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security
D. All of above


4. Per Zubulake, which factor will not be considered by the court in determining the allocation of document production costs between plaintiffs and defendants?


A. The relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so
B. The admissibility of the electronic discovery expert for each party
C. The total cost of production, compared to the resources available to each party
D. The relative benefits to the parties obtaining the information


5. In Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, Judge Shira A. Scheindin issued groundbreaking opinions regarding electronic discovery issues, which of the following issues was not addressed by Judge Scheindin?


A. The ability for the disclosing party to shift the costs of restoring inaccessible back up tapes to the requesting party
B. The scope of a party's duty to preserve electronic evidence during the course of litigation
C. The lawyer's duty to monitor their clients' compliance with electronic data preservation and production
D. The duty of an electronic discovery expert to use standard industry practice in the collection of documents


6. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, on what grounds did the United States District Court conclude that Carmichael's expert testimony was inadmissible?


A. The expert did not have enough work experience to be qualified as an expert.
B. The expert failed to directly answer questions asked at deposition.
C. The expert failed to show the linkage between his methodology and the case.
D. The expert's methodology was based on his observation and knowledge and hence not scientifically valid.


7. Kumho Tire: Per Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which of the following does not have to be met by a witness in order to be qualified as an expert:


A. The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine facts at issue.
B. The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data.
C. The expert has prior experience in similar cases.
D. The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.


8. In United States v. Diaz, the court held that the defendant had adequately preserved a substantive challenge to the reliability of the expert witness testimony by making general references at trial to Daubert or competency.


A. True
B. False


9. United States v. Finley: The Necessary Compulsion Test relates to:


A. Rule 704(b)
B. Ultimate opinion testimony relating to the mental state of a defendant
C. Whether the testimony will "assist the trier of fact" under Rule 702
D. All of the above


10. The court in Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendants’ false advertising actually deceived the public “because it is self-evident that advertising influences consumers’ decisions.”


A. True
B. False


Answer Key: 1. A; 2. B; 3. D; 4. B; 5. D; 6. D; 7. C; 8. B; 9. D; 10. A


Jason Elster is an associate with Greenberg Traurig in Chicago, Illinois.


 
Copyright © 2017, American Bar Association. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the American Bar Association, the Section of Litigation, this committee, or the employer(s) of the author(s).


Back to Top