| D. Florida [M.D.] |
|
Reminder: These case digests are provided for informational purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice. Anyone conducting legal research on a particular topic or in a specific jurisdiction is advised to supplement these materials with their own efforts or those of a qualified attorney whom they have hired for that purpose.2011Pegasus Imaging Corp. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., Case No. 8:07-CV-1937-T-27 EAJ (M.D. Florida 1-12-2011) -- Motion in Limine Denied -- A computer forensics expert hired by plaintiff testified that certain computer files known as "OCA files" were a integral part of plaintiff's software and could not be created without using plaintiff's software. Defendant moved to suppress the expert's conclusory testimony on the grounds that he was unqualified and used unreliable methodology to reach his conclusion. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The district court noted that "so long as the expert is minimally qualified, objections to the level of the expert's expertise [go] to credibility and weight, not admissibility." Defendant did not dispute that plaintiff's expert was qualified in the field of computer forensics. Instead, defendant challenged the expert's familiarity with the specific type of files in question, and objected to the fact that he had educated himself about the files prior to rendering his opinion. The district court held that the fact that the expert "was not intimately familiar with OCA files and educated himself before preparing his report does not render him unqualified." The court also rejected the defendant's challenge to the expert's reliability, stating that he had reasonable grounds for the deductions he made in support of his opinion. The defendant's challenges to the expert's methodology, the court said, were better raised through cross-examination and competing expert testimony, rather than excluding it altogether. The motion in limine was denied.2010Borden v. U.S., Case No. 6:09-cv-481-Orl-31DAB (M.D. Fla. 7-15-2010) -- Petitioner, a tax preparer, was convicted on 27 counts of assisting individuals in filing false tax returns. Petitioner moved for post-conviction relief on the grounds that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, petitioner argued that her attorney failed to challenge the admission seized from her computers, on the grounds that the search warrant did not include a protocol for limiting investigator access to non-relevant information. The district court noted that the Eleventh Circuit does not have a requirement for such a protocol and that in any event, there was no evidence that agents went beyond the scope of the warrant during their search. Although that argument was rejected, the district court did order a hearing on whether petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to a plea deal offered by the government.2009
|
Please Donate
If you find the resources on this site interesting, or if they have saved you and your client time and money, please support CFD with a donation.
