Cott Beverages, Inc. vs. Americann Co-Pack, Inc. Automated Process and Packing
District judge writes, “LaPorte is qualified to testify in the general and specific areas of forensic science and ink dating methodology. LaPorte is arguably one of the foremost researchers, presenters, educators, and expert witnesses in the field of forensic science in general and in the area of ink-dating methodology in particular. LaPorte’s job, career, and educational qualifications are unsurpassed.”
The District judge goes on to state, “Finally, LaPorte’s conclusion was couched in reliable and scientifically valid terminology …”
Court rules that the ink dating test is accurate and reliable
U.S. Magistrate Judge concludes there is clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiff recently fabricated a document that was allegedly executed on April 28, 2003 and writes, “[a]ccordingly, Plaintiff has failed to successfully rebut LaPorte’s ink-dating of the ballpoint ink used for the handwritten notations on the Work for Hire Document, such that LaPorte’s conclusion that it is highly probable the ink is less than two-years old and, thus, could not have been placed on the Work for Hire Document on April 28, 2003, is unchallenged.”
Lake Forest Master Community Association, Inc. vs. Orlando Lake Forest Joint Venture
LaPorte concluded in his expert report that Plaintiff’s expert used a method that is not generally accepted or scientifically reliable and Defendant’s file a motion to partially exclude the report and testimony of opposing expert because the ink dating method used failed to pass the Frye test (see Motion).
The Circuit Judge rules that Plaintiffs’ expert used “… tests that are not widely accepted …”
and “[t]he method does not meet the Frye standard, nor any basic scientific principal studied by
Aequitas Solution, Inc., Plaintiff vs. Larry Anderson and Gary P. Lloyd, Defendants and C Innovation, Inc., Nominal Defendant
Defendant presented document entries purported to have been prepared from October 2003 through January 2012. Based on a comprehensive forensic examination to include ink dating analysis using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, LaPorte concluded that there was overwhelming support that many of the entries were not created until January 2012, or sometime afterwards. Following LaPorte’s expert testimony in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, Plaintiff was able to negotiate an extremely favorable order giving them all of the relief they were seeking.
Yakov Shlimovich, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Mikhail Cheban et al, Defendant and Respondents
With the suggestion that plaintiff (Shlimovich) signed a blank piece of paper that was later re-inserted through a printer, Shlimovich offered the testimony of an expert who opined that the 2006 Agreement was “highly suspicious” because Shlimovich’s signature line was not aligned with the rest of the text based on the creation and use of an electronic grid. LaPorte demonstrated that the spacing in the expert’s grid had been manipulated, which created a misleading appearance of nonalignment. LaPorte clearly demonstrated that the text, signature lines, and signatures on the 2006 Agreement were aligned both vertically and horizontally on the document and there was no evidence that a blank piece of paper was signed and then re-inserted through a printer to add text after the fact.
The Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California ultimately ruled in favor of Defendant (Cheban) and agreed with LaPorte’s findings. In his ruling, the judge states “that the testimony by Shlimovich that he signed a blank piece of paper and that he never agreed to the text contained in the agreement is not credible and this court finds such testimony unbelievable.”
The Court of Appeal in the State of California affirmed the judgment and highlights other deficiencies with respect to the forensic evidence presented by Shlimovich.