Beirne v. Patton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• excluding opinion when expert only reviewed 18 of 231 complaints, did not create a representative sample of complaints, and did not interview relevant individuals
• finding 15 that expert testimony was not reliable because experts that rely primarily on experience must 16 explain how their experience led to the conclusion reached and this expert did not “adequately 17 specif[y] the method by which she arrived at her conclusions”
• “Rule 26(e) should only apply when the party ‘correct[s] an inaccuracy’ or ‘fill[s] in a gap based on information previously unavailable.’” (quoting Luke v. Family Care and Urgent Med. Clinics, 323 Fed. Appx. 496, 500 (9th Cir. 2009)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).