# Meinhardt v. Unisys Corp. > Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · March 22, 1999 · 173 F.3d 145 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6982106 ## Case - **Full name:** In re: UNISYS SAVINGS PLAN LITIGATION John P. Meinhardt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Unisys Corporation (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv-03067) Bernard McDevitt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Unisys Corporation (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv-03126) Parker C. Kean, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Unisys Corporation (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv-03164) Michael Heck Joseph McCarthy Angelo Depietro, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Unisys Corporation The Administrative Committee of the Unisys Savings Plan The Investment Committee of the Unisys Savings Plan Jack A. Blaine John J. Loughlin Kenneth Miller David A. White Stefan Riesenfeld (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv-03276) Gary Vala, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jack A. Blaine Michael R. Losey John J. Loughlin Kenneth L. Miller Stefan C. Riesenfeld Curtis A. Hessler David A. White Unisys Corporation The Northern Trust Company (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv-03278) Carolyn A. Gohlike, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Unisys Corporation (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv-03321) Nadia F. Sos Farouk M. Sos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unisys Corporation (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv-03582) Kenneth Goers John J. Cieslicki, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Unisys Corporation The Northern Trust Company (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv-04678) Dennis C. Stanga James M. Collins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Unisys Corporation (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv-04689) John H. Burgess, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Unisys Corporation (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv-04696) William Torkildson v. Unisys Corporation (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv-04754), John M. Meinhardt, Michael Heck, Joseph McCarthy, Angelo DiPietro, Gary Vala, Carolyn Gohlike, Dennis C. Stanga, James M. Collins, John H. Burgess, Jr., Bernard McDevitt, Parker Kean, Nadia F. Sos, Farouk M. Sos, Kenneth Goers, John J. Cieslicki, and William Torkildson, in the above-listed actions, individually and on behalf of the class certified by Order of the district court entered on January 28, 1992 in Master File Civil Action No. 91-3067, Appellants In re: Unisys Savings Plan Litigation John P. Meinhardt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Unisys Corporation (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv-03067) Henry Zylla Richard Silver Ronald Grippo Edward Lawler Richard Andujar Clarence Muller Charles Wahler James McLaughlin Donald Rader Joseph Lau James Gangale Alfred Contarino John Marcucci Joseph A. Fiore Richard Mastrodomenico Nick Klemenz Peter Szczybek, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Engineers Union Local 444 of the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine And Furniture Workers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. Locals 445 of the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. Locals 450 of the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. Locals 470 of the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine And Furniture Workers, A.F.L.C.I.O. Locals 165 of the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Unisys Corporation Edwin P. Gilbert John J. Loughlin Thomas Penhale, individually and in their capacities as members of the Unisys Employee Benefits Executive Committee and administrators of the Unisys Retirement Investment Plan Richard H. Bierly, Edwin P. Gilbert Curtis A. Hessler Leon J. Level Kenneth L. Miller David A. White Jack A. Blaine Stefan C. Riesenfeld George T. Robson, individually and in their capacities as members of the Investment Committee of the Unisys Retirement Investment Plan (E.D. PA. Civil No. 91-cv03772), Henry Zylla, Richard Silver, Ronald Grippo, Edward Lawler, Richard Andujar, Clarence Muller, Charles Wahler, James McLaughlin, Donald Rader, Joseph Lau, James Gangale, Alfred Contarino, Richard Colby, John Marcucci, Joseph Fiore, Richard Mastrodomenico, Nick Klemenz and Peter Szczybek, in the above-listed actions, individually and on behalf of the class certified by Order of the district court entered on January 28, 1992 in Master File Civil Action No. 91-3067 - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - **Decided:** March 22, 1999 - **Citations:** 173 F.3d 145; 51 Fed. R. Serv. 279; 22 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2945; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 4863; 1999 WL 164435 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** On rehearing by Garth - **Judges:** Alito, Becker, Garth, Greenberg, Lewis, Mansmann, McKee, Nygaard, Rendell, Roth, Scirica, Sloviter, Stapleton, Weis - **Cited by:** 71 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6982106 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - explaining “[w]hen the role of the gatekeeper to admit or exclude evidence (the judge) and the role of the factfinder to assess and weigh the evidence that was admitted (the jury) are one and the same, the judge who becomes the factfinder as well as the gatekeeper must be give… - explaining that “[w]e would be hard pressed to require a District Court judge sitting in a non-jury case who credibly and with reason found that [s]he could not believe a witness to nevertheless hear the witness’s direct examination, cross-examination, and rebuttal examination… - recognizing that the circuits are split on whether the plaintiff or defendant bears the burden of proof on causation and noting that the Second Circuit, under Silverman, places the "burden of proof on plaintiff” - holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3), in contrast to § 502(a)(2), which allows relief on behalf of a plan, is required to prove an individual loss ## Opinion text SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC April 30, 1999 The petition for rehearing filed by Appellants having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, and to all the other available circuit judges in activé service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court en banc, the petition for rehearing is DENIED. Chief Judge Becker would grant rehearing en banc. OPINION SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING GARTH, Circuit Judge: One day after we filed the opinion in this appeal, on March 22, 1999, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999). Kumho directed that the DaubeH factors be applied equally to non-scientific expert testimony as well as to scientific expert testimony. Although the Petition for Rehearing urges that Kumho now requires a change in this court’s panel majority opinion, we are satisfied that if anything, Kum-ho strengthens our analysis. 1 It should be noted that this court’s majority opinion specifically emphasized that “measured by any standard, scientific or non-scientific, the District Court did not *175 abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Got-theimer’s testimony.” Maj. Op. at 157. In so stating, we equated non-scientific expert testimony with scientific expert testimony insofar as the Daubert factors are concerned. Thus, with the emphasis on a district court’s discretion to exclude or to admit expert testimony under General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 , 118 S.Ct. 512 , 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997), and Kumho, we are not persuaded that the Supreme Court’s Kumho opinion, which reversed the Eleventh Circuit, requires any modification of our disposition as reflected in Part VI of the filed majority opinion. Judge Weis joins in this opinion. . See, e.g. Kumho, 119 S.Ct. at 1175 ("Our emphasis on the word 'may' thus reflects Daubert's description of the Rule 702 inquiry as ‘a flexible one.’ Daubert makes clear that the factors it mentions do not constitute a 'definitive checklist or test.' And Daubert adds that the gatekeeping inquiry must be 'tied to the facts of a particular case.' ”) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786 ); id. ("[T]he factors identified in Dau-bert may or may not be pertintent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert’s particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony.”) (quoting the brief for the Solicitor General); id. ("[Dau-bert’s\ list of factors was meant to be helpful, not definitive.”); id. at 1176 ("Our opinion in Joiner makes clear that a court of appeals is to apply an abuse-of-discretion standard when it ‘reviews a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony.’ That standard applies as much to the trial court’s decisions about how to determine reliablility as to its ultimate conclusion.”) (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 138-39 (1997)). --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6982106. Public record. Not legal advice.