United States District Court, District of Columbia
May 12, 2003
IN RE: VITAMINS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ANIMAL SCIENCE, ET AL.
CHINOOK GROUP, LTD. ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas F. Hogan, Chief Judge
Re: DuCoa, L.P. and DCV, Inc's Motion to
Preclude Evidence under Daubert
Pending before the Court is DuCoa, L.P. ("DuCoa") and DCV, Inc's ("DCV") Motion to Preclude Evidence under Daubert filed November 5, 2002. In that motion DuCoa, L.P. and DCV, Inc. "adopt and incorporate by reference and all Daubert motions" related to any aspect of this multidistrict litigation. Many of the motions were mooted or withdrawn due to settlement. At the April 2, 2003 Status Conference, the Court inquired as to what remained of the instant motion, and specifically, with respect to arguments to exclude the testimony of Dr. Bernheim whether the straight line / flat line methodology used affected the choline chloride Class case. DuCoa and DCV responded by written brief on April 28, 2003 and informed the Court as follows:
Although the arguments to preclude Dr. Bernheim's
testimony which could be related to the straight line/
flat line methodology do not appear to be in issue
with the choline chloride damages calculations, the
arguments related to the forecast model, and therefore
the transaction model, still need to be resolved
No other Daubert motions were implicated in their April 28, 2003 brief. Based on this representation, and on the extensive argument and testimony heard by the Court on February 3, 2003 and March 20 and 21, 2003, it is hereby
ORDERED that DuCoa, L.P. ("DuCoa") and DCV, Inc's ("DCV") Motion to Preclude Evidence under Daubert is DENIED for the same reasons as stated in the Court's ruling from the bench and corresponding Memorializing Order on March 21, 2003 denying the Niacin Defendants's Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Reports and Testimony of Dr. Bernheim and Perloff as Related to Niacin. The Court notes that the Dr. Bernheim's straight line/ flat line methodology was not at issue in the Niacin Defendants' motions. Although this does not appear to be at issue in this case, all arguments respecting the this methodology are preserved and may be renewed at the appropriate time.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.