An industry expert was asked to project sales for a prospective new branch in a distant market. The defendant had allegedly prevented the plaintiff from entering this market, and damages were to be assessed on the basis of lost profits. The industry expert prepared a report, containing the derivation of sales projections for the new branch.

In a substantial antitrust case, the plaintiff’s economic expert, with impeccable credentials, worked as an associate of a consulting firm with capable support staff. A considerable amount of work was accomplished with commensurate fees. However, the expert provided supervisory services and never became acquainted with important facts about the industry, the firm being defended, or the plaintiff. Although the expert’s report contained important facts, some of the more obvious facts were not included in the report.

The plaintiff’s attorney filed the original complaint before retaining an economist. The antitrust cause of action requires a definition of a relevant geographic market and product market. Without consultation with an economist, the definitions were poorly constructed, offering three separate definitions of a relevant geographical market, all with differing dimensions. The defendants’ attorneys retained several economists to prepare experts’ reports, due the same day as the last day for filing an amended complaint. The lead defense counsel paid a considerable sum for the preparation of the reports.

An economic expert was asked to estimate the damages associated with the improper use of a trademark. The trademark had been sold to a competitor, but the use of the trademark in annual distributors’ catalogs inadvertently had not been excluded from the manufacturer’s listings.

In a case involving individual distributors in a multi-level-marketing (MLM) industry, the plaintiff’s economic expert sought to estimate the number of would-be distributors the manufacturer would have in its distributor force, in the absence of alleged disparaging remarks and literature. An economic model was developed and an estimating equation was presented as the basis for quantifying the “missing” distributors. Lost sales were directly linked to the missing distributors.

In an antitrust case, the plaintiff claimed that one of defendant’s plants was not efficient and was pricing below average variable cost. An important component of variable cost was transportation expense, measured by transport time of delivery trucks. A computerized transmitter had been installed in each truck so that the home station could receive transport times. Monthly summaries were produced for each plant as part of the regular reporting schedule.

A plaintiff’s economic expert was claiming that damages were to accrue over an extended period of time due to a permanently damaged reputation. A spreadsheet was used to list sales, costs, and resulting profits by month for over twenty years. The expert had altered and refined the spreadsheet several times.

The case involved a dispute between a retailer and the manufacturer. The plaintiff chose not to hire an economic expert, instead choosing to retain a CPA to submit a report in support of the claims of alleged economic damages. The plaintiff’s expert based her report upon multiple theories. The two initial alternative theories were (1) a before-after valuation approach designed to show the drop in value of the plaintiff’s business allegedly resulting from defendant’s actions and (2) a price-discrimination theory in which damages are calculated based on a comparison of actual and “but-for” price concessions.



The case involved a forecast of future medical expenses with an unknown life expectancy. The defense chose not to take the economist’s deposition and did not name an opposing economist to testify at trial. The plaintiff’s economist presented multiple damage calculations based upon differing life expectancies ranging from 6 years to 79 years with resulting damages ranging from $2 million to $63 million.

A plaintiff-dealer sought damages from a manufacturer on the grounds of price discrimination, claiming that the manufacturer sold inventory at discriminatory prices to dealers. The plaintiff’s expert was a computer scientist with no economics or statistics background.