Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Packers and Stockyards
Expert Testimony of Regression Analysis
Admissible to Prove Violation
Jillian HishawNational AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Schumacher v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., No.02-1027, 2006 WL 47504 (D.S.D.2006), the United States District Court of South Dakota denied both parties motion to strike expert testimony. Id at 1. Several Cattle producers brought a class action suit against four major packers alleging unfair and deceptive practices under the Packers and Stockyards Act and unjust enrichment. Id Due to an underreporting error of beef prices by the USDA that allegedly caused lower prices to be paid to the producers, plaintiffs argued that the defendants “knew or should have known that the boxed beef prices were incorrectly under-reported.” Id The parties offered conflicting expert testimony, and both filed motions to exclude the others’ testimony. Id at 2. The defendants contended that the plaintiff’s expert did not properly apply a certain kind of statistical analysis, known as regression analysis, to the facts. Id at 4. The packers argued that the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony should not be admitted because he did not consider certain variables. Id at 5. The Court, however, stated that “regression analysis does not become inadmissible as evidence simply because it does not include every variable.” Id (quoting Maitland v. Univ. of Minn., 155 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1998)). The plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s expert testimony, some of which relied on yet another expert’s analysis, did not utilize proper methodology and was not relevant. The court, however, pointed out that it is allowable for one expert to use another’s analysis, and that the defendant’s expert’s attempt to show a lack of correlation between boxed beef prices and fed cattle prices was relevant. The court denied both parties’ motions and allowed both parties’ expert testimony. Id at 7.
The case was decided on January 5, 2006; this summary was posted June 1, 2006.