Teachers' Retirement System v. Pfizer, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that the entirety of an expert’s testimony should not be excluded on the basis of an error in “one small part” of the analysis
• explaining that an expert was not required to disaggregate different types of price inflation because the plaintiffs’ theory of liability did not rely on this distinction
• reversing the district court’s decision to preclude the plaintiff’s damages expert, concluding that the expert’s model fit the plaintiff’s theory of liability
• noting, regarding expert witness admissibility determinations, that the “district court has broad discretion to carry out this gatekeeping function,” and “[i]ts inquiry is necessarily a ‘flexible one’”
• finding that there was a genuine dispute as to whether Pfizer had ultimate authority over statements given by another company’s employees because of a fax that stated that Pfizer and the other company each had to give final sign-off on statements given by those employees
• “The proponent of the expert testimony has the burden to establish . . . admissibility requirements[]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).