CFL Expert Witness Testimony & Evidence 2

Question 1

A financial litigator wants to exclude a damages expert whose lost-profits model uses a 'but-for' revenue projection based on no empirical data. The strongest basis for a Daubert motion is:

Accepted Answer

The methodology cannot be tested or validated

Answer

Untestable methodology is a core Daubert factor; an ungrounded but-for model with no empirical basis typically fails the reliability prong.

Question 2

Which of the following is NOT one of the four original Daubert factors for assessing expert testimony reliability?

Accepted Answer

The expert's fee arrangement with retaining counsel

Answer

Fee arrangements are not a Daubert factor, though they may be used for impeachment; the four factors relate to the methodology itself.

Question 3

An expert's opinion that relies on hearsay data may still be admissible if:

Accepted Answer

Experts in the field reasonably rely on such data

Answer

FRE 703 allows experts to rely on otherwise inadmissible data if it is the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.

Question 4

In financial litigation, the term 'battle of the experts' most often arises because:

Accepted Answer

Both sides retain qualified experts who reach opposing conclusions

Answer

When both parties retain credible experts with conflicting opinions, the jury must choose between them, creating a 'battle of the experts.'

Question 5

A financial expert who learns mid-engagement that new information materially changes their opinion must:

Accepted Answer

Supplement their report promptly under FRCP 26(e)

Answer

FRCP 26(e) imposes a duty to supplement disclosures when an expert's opinion changes based on new information.

CFL - Certified Financial Litigator Practice Test

CFL - Certified Financial Litigator Practice Test

CFL Expert Witness Testimony & Evidence 2