Artwork

Вміст надано Bobby Capucci. Весь вміст подкастів, включаючи епізоди, графіку та описи подкастів, завантажується та надається безпосередньо компанією Bobby Capucci або його партнером по платформі подкастів. Якщо ви вважаєте, що хтось використовує ваш захищений авторським правом твір без вашого дозволу, ви можете виконати процедуру, описану тут https://uk.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - додаток Podcast
Переходьте в офлайн за допомогою програми Player FM !

Jes Staley And His Motion To Exclude JP Morgan's Expert Witness Opinions (Part 2) (8/27/24)

15:05
 
Поширити
 

Manage episode 436467445 series 3380507
Вміст надано Bobby Capucci. Весь вміст подкастів, включаючи епізоди, графіку та описи подкастів, завантажується та надається безпосередньо компанією Bobby Capucci або його партнером по платформі подкастів. Якщо ви вважаєте, що хтось використовує ваш захищений авторським правом твір без вашого дозволу, ви можете виконати процедуру, описану тут https://uk.player.fm/legal.
Summary of Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR - Third-Party Defendant James Staley’s Brief in Support of His Motion to Exclude JPMorgan Chase Bank’s Proffered Expert OpinionsIn this case, James Staley, a third-party defendant, has filed a brief supporting his motion to exclude expert opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank. The core arguments of Staley’s brief are:
  1. Lack of Relevance and Reliability: Staley argues that the expert opinions submitted by JPMorgan Chase Bank do not meet the legal standards of relevance and reliability required under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. He contends that the opinions are speculative, not based on sufficient facts or data, and do not employ reliable principles and methods.
  2. Failure to Establish a Sufficient Basis for Opinions: Staley claims that the experts have not provided a proper factual foundation for their opinions. He argues that the expert reports lack direct connection to the specific facts of the case and fail to address how the opinions would help the court understand the evidence or determine facts in issue.
  3. Prejudice and Confusion: The brief also highlights concerns that allowing these expert opinions could cause unfair prejudice against Staley and confuse the jury. Staley argues that the expert opinions could lead the jury to rely on unsubstantiated and misleading conclusions, which would be unfair and unjust.
  4. Request for Exclusion: Based on these arguments, Staley requests the court to exclude the expert testimonies and opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank in their entirety, asserting that their inclusion would violate legal standards and potentially harm the integrity of the judicial process.
Overall, Staley’s motion aims to prevent the introduction of what he considers to be flawed and unhelpful expert opinions that could negatively influence the outcome of the case.
(commercial at 9:59)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
  continue reading

1041 епізодів

Artwork
iconПоширити
 
Manage episode 436467445 series 3380507
Вміст надано Bobby Capucci. Весь вміст подкастів, включаючи епізоди, графіку та описи подкастів, завантажується та надається безпосередньо компанією Bobby Capucci або його партнером по платформі подкастів. Якщо ви вважаєте, що хтось використовує ваш захищений авторським правом твір без вашого дозволу, ви можете виконати процедуру, описану тут https://uk.player.fm/legal.
Summary of Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR - Third-Party Defendant James Staley’s Brief in Support of His Motion to Exclude JPMorgan Chase Bank’s Proffered Expert OpinionsIn this case, James Staley, a third-party defendant, has filed a brief supporting his motion to exclude expert opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank. The core arguments of Staley’s brief are:
  1. Lack of Relevance and Reliability: Staley argues that the expert opinions submitted by JPMorgan Chase Bank do not meet the legal standards of relevance and reliability required under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. He contends that the opinions are speculative, not based on sufficient facts or data, and do not employ reliable principles and methods.
  2. Failure to Establish a Sufficient Basis for Opinions: Staley claims that the experts have not provided a proper factual foundation for their opinions. He argues that the expert reports lack direct connection to the specific facts of the case and fail to address how the opinions would help the court understand the evidence or determine facts in issue.
  3. Prejudice and Confusion: The brief also highlights concerns that allowing these expert opinions could cause unfair prejudice against Staley and confuse the jury. Staley argues that the expert opinions could lead the jury to rely on unsubstantiated and misleading conclusions, which would be unfair and unjust.
  4. Request for Exclusion: Based on these arguments, Staley requests the court to exclude the expert testimonies and opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank in their entirety, asserting that their inclusion would violate legal standards and potentially harm the integrity of the judicial process.
Overall, Staley’s motion aims to prevent the introduction of what he considers to be flawed and unhelpful expert opinions that could negatively influence the outcome of the case.
(commercial at 9:59)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
  continue reading

1041 епізодів

Todos los episodios

×
 
Loading …

Ласкаво просимо до Player FM!

Player FM сканує Інтернет для отримання високоякісних подкастів, щоб ви могли насолоджуватися ними зараз. Це найкращий додаток для подкастів, який працює на Android, iPhone і веб-сторінці. Реєстрація для синхронізації підписок між пристроями.

 

Короткий довідник