home home Staff Contact
Forensic Protection - Services Forensic Protection - Rates Forensic Protection - FP_System Forensic Protection - Process
Newmaker

Jerry Newmaker v City of Fortuna (C-12-4675-PJH)
During the discovery process, critical video evidence provided to the opposing expert was not disclosed, and did not become known to my hiring attorney, until it was submitted as an exhibit with that opposing expert's Rule 26 report.  Unaware this critical video evidence existed, my expert report relied upon the only video evidence that had been provided during discovery.

In a rebuttal report, the opposing expert correctly proved that the video evidence that I had relied upon was fatally flawed and inaccurate when compared to the video version that he relied upon, but made no reference to the fact that the critical video evidence used in his findings was never made known to me, nor that both video versions originated from his side of the litigation.

Since my Rule 26 expert report was unknowingly based upon flawed discovery evidence, and made no reference to the critical video evidence utilized by the opposing expert, my analysis and processing were excluded as part of the District Court's decision for summary judgment by judge Phyllis J. Hamilton in December of 2013.

In November 2016, Judge W. Fletcher of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this matter stating, "We review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision to exclude expert testimony and other evidence during summary judgment proceedings."

As of December 2017, new supplemental reports have been filed and this case is pending an outcome.

Copyright © Forensic Protection
QuickLinks | Main page | Case study | Media | FAQs | Contact us