Here is another of our videos offering tips and inisights into the business of picture taking. TRANSCRIPT:Here a few thoughts on the best practices for digital photography workflow. Please post your responses by clicking the hyperlink below. If you’ve got questions, please pose them inside our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Specifically, DEWPC asserts that Ostrovsky had not been qualified, changed his opinion, relied on insufficient fundamental facts, and used flawed methods in making his opinion. Ostrovsky is an avowed business valuation analyst, but because payment is one element of business valuation, DEWPC deems Ostrovsky incompetent to testify concerning compensation. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admission of expert testimony in this case. A witness may qualify as an expert “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. In addition to challenging his certification, DEWPC asserts that Ostrovsky had not been a competent expert see because his opinion regarding the value of Watson’s services changed over the course of the proceedings.
It is true that Ostrovsky’s opinion changed as the proceedings progressed. 184,876. After finding mistakes in his preliminary assessment and learning additional facts through Watson’s deposition, Ostrovsky eventually revised his report and attained his last estimate. The district court made a specific finding on this point and found Ostrovsky competent.
- Promotional material to be used on the business premises of the recipient
- May require regular maintenance and modification
- Use Strong Call To Action
- Define Output types –
- Adopt a far more respectful build
- Get-togethers with going to in-laws
- The quantity of customer support seat tickets resolved
- BookScouter baadhaa ay database ee shirkadaha buyback buugga ugu sareeya bixinta
DEWPC does not cite any expert assisting its contention that Ostrovky’s modified opinion rendered his testimony incompetent. Actually, it seems Ostrovsky properly updated his expert record, giving DEWPC adequate notice of his modified opinions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), (e)(2). Under these circumstances, we see no reason Ostrovsky’s modified opinion would be incompetent.
Thus, we see no misuse of discretion. DEWPC also argues that Ostrovsky failed to consider certain facts in rendering his opinion. ” his or her testimony is excluded properly. Here, DEWPC cross-examined Ostrovsky and questioned the factual basis for his opinion. The district court could take this into consideration when assessing Ostrovky’s credibility. Predicated on the record, however, Ostrovsky did not neglect to consider “various facts” rendering his opinion “fundamentally unsupported.” Id.
416-17. To be certain, Ostrovsky even revised his opinion to reveal a lower salary after he considered new facts revealed at Watson’s deposition. Therefore, after critiquing the factual basis for Ostrovky’s opinion, we conclude the district court didn’t abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony. Finally, relating to DEWPC, the district court should have excluded Ostrovky’s testimony because his conclusions were the product of flawed methods. In identifying whether expert testimony should be admitted, the district courtroom must determine if “the expert’s methodology is reliable and can be reasonably applied to the facts of the situation.” v Eckelkamp. Beste, 315 F.3d 863, 868 (8th Cir.