Timothy Brainard v. American Skandia Life Assurance Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that when an expert’s affidavit was “conclusory” and there was an “absence of meaningful analysis or reasoning,” exclusion was appropriate
• holding that an expert opinion is permitted at the summary judgment stage so long as the opinion is not “a conclusory assertion about ultimate legal issues” (citation omitted)
• holding attorney’s affidavit that does nothing more than assemble properly authenticated evidence is still not admissible, because it is not based on personal knowledge
• holding that “[a]ll affidavits, regardless of the author, must be made on personal knowledge and set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence.” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Beyah v. Coughlin, 789 F.2d 986, 989 (2d Cir. 1986
• finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s request to add an additional party in the amended complaint
• noting that “’[a]n expert who supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).