NY AG’s Expert Witnesses Employ Flawed Methodology and Are Scientifically Unreliable
This month, ExxonMobil filed two court memos regarding the New York attorney general’s (NY AG) expert witnesses in the trial for the lawsuit alleging ExxonMobil misled investors. Based on glaring flaws in the witnesses’ reasoning and methodologies, ExxonMobil sought to exclude their testimonies or have the court otherwise resolve major issues in the witnesses’ assertations. Even though New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager, who is overseeing the trial, denied ExxonMobil’s motion to exclude the witness’ testimonies, the serious inadequacies in the witnesses’ qualifications and arguments underscore the deep-seated weaknesses of the NY AG’s case.
The NY AG’s expert witnesses Eli Bartov, an accounting professor at New York University, and Peter Boukouzis, an Assistant Professor at University of Saint Katherine, were tasked with clarifying issues in ExxonMobil’s argument that require specialized professional or technical knowledge, in an effort to help advance the NY AG’s case. At least, that is what expert witnesses are supposed to do. But Bartov’s testimony is unreliable, lacks proper foundation, and is riddled with gaps in conclusions and methodologies. Similarly, Boukouzis also lacks reliable methodology, and on top of that, the professor has no relevant experience or background to serve as an expert witness.
Learn more over at EID Climate.