Kintera, Inc. v. Convio, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding expert testimony to be objectionable when the underlying facts of have no “affirmative proof”
• allowing expert testimony based solely on a plaintiff’s summary of deposition testimony “would be an abdication of the screening function” under Daubert
• presuming “the reliability of the plaintiff’s lawyer’s summarizations of deposition testimony” and allowing the expert’s “testimony to be based solely on those summaries[] would be an abdication of the screening function” imposed by Daubert
• expert opinion is objectionable where there is no “affirmative proof of the underlying facts” upon which the opinion is based
• “[D]ocuments prepared specifically for use in litigation are . . . dripping with motivations to misrepresent” and “are therefore inadmissible hearsay.”
• “Acceptance of the notion that an expert can reasonably base his opinion on summaries of deposition testimony prepared by a party’s lawyer would effectively eliminate Daubert’s insistence that an expert’s opinion be grounded on reliable information.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).