Client Correspondence

re Expert Testimony
Jury verdict was $14 million — 75% on defendant. Great work again, Paul. One of the best experts I’ve ever seen.
Tom Feher, The Simon Law Group. 7/11/18

$10,650,000 settlement in the Walnut Creek pipeline explosion case against Kinder Morgan — Luke Ellis of Gillin, Jacobson, Ellis and Larson listed Paul Kayfetz as the only plaintiffs’ expert ( VERDICTSEARCH October 22. 2007).

Mid-trial high seven figure settlement 3 days after Mr. Kayfetz’ visibility study, computer simulation, and expert testimony were presented to the jury with no objection from the opposing party. Shea & Shea, San Jose, May 2007.

Mr. Kayfetz’ testimony during pretrial motions led to rulings excluding defense computer simulaions, videos, and still photos. Mr. Kayfetz’ photos were not challenged. While he was in court in the 3rd week of trial appearing as an expert witness the case against the govenment entity settled in the high seven figure range for the single plaintiff. Roger Dreyer, Sacramento.

Mr. Kayfetz’ testimony in the 402 hearing led to the exclusion of the defense computer simulation and the admission of Mr. Kayfetz HD-Video visibility study. The verdict was $6.9 million with a successful 998 ruling paying all of the expert fees and expenses — Yslas v. Sacramento Reclamation, Roger Dreyer, Sacramento, 2006.

Mr. Kayfetz provided advice during plaintiff’s computer animator’s deposition which facilitated cross-examination showing that his “precision 3d computer animation” was a physically-impossible computer cartoon. Plaintiff’s counsel dismissed the State of Hawaii and its co-defendent for a nominal amount in return for an agreement to remove their counsel and Mr. Kayfetz from the case. (Plaintiff was a severely braindamaged quadriplegic). Fyfe v. Edelman,2005, David Louie, Honolulu.

Mr.Kayfetz nighttime visibility study resulted in the nuisance value settlement of the O’Reilley Firm’s case against the delineator manufacturer; and, after his testimony and viveo were admitted into evidence despite strenuous objections, a 41% comparative finding against the plaintiff bicyclist. Dunn v. State of Hawaii, 2005, Robin Kishi, Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. Kayfetz Visibility Study, Computer Simulation, visibility analysis testimony, and testimony criticizing opposing expert testimony was presented to the jury for most of a day. The award was $18.6 million for our injured pedestrian client. Moffat v. City of Los Angeles, 2006. Rouda, Feder & Tjietjen.

I am pleased to inform you that the jury in less than two hours of deliberation returned a defense verdict. I believe your extremely effective expert testimony was instrumental in persuading the jury . . .
Timothy C. Davis; Clapp, Moroney, Bellagama, Davis & Vucinich; October 7, 1994

In talking to the jurors afterward, they felt that our presentation of the case was clear, simple and to the point. They felt that the visibility study, your testimony, and that of our other experts, was very helpful to them in understanding the issues and reaching the proper decision.
Gregory J. Rockwell; Bornazian, Jensen & Garthe; February 11, 1992

Your testimony was important in persuading the jury of our position, and your cooperation in meeting with me and scheduling your testimony made my job that much easier. Our system demands much from litigants, judges, juries, attorneys and witnesses. Thank you so much for your participation. Without it, the system would not work.
R. Ashley Cohn; Bertrand, Fox, Elliot & Cohn; August 24, 1992

Engineering photographer Paul Kayfetz testified in the DeHaven v. Fragomeni case, August 9, 1991 issue, Vol. 35, No. 32. Mr. Kayfetz testified at an evidentiary hearing that the plaintiff’s videotape of the accident scene did not show lighting conditions similar to those that existed on the night of the incident. Based on this testimony, Judge Richard Bartalini excluded from evidence the videotape offered by plaintiff.
David M. McLaughlin; Ropers, Majeski et al.; October 9, 1991; [Writing to Jury Verdicts Weekly]

[From Jury Verdicts Weekly]: Plaintiff attorneys further wrote that it should be noted that the testimony of these two witnesses was severely impeached by Mr. Kayfetz, who did the visibility study of the area and testified unequivocally that they could not have seen the boy raise his arm from where they were seated in the Camaro; that they had given prior inconsistent statements as to exactly where their vehicle was when the shooting started; and that the photographs taken by Mr. Kayfetz in his investigation indicated that the officers could not have seen what they alleged in their testimony.

Demand, according to the defendant attorneys, $150,000.
Offer $60,000.
Plaintiff Verdict $500,000 (Wrongful Death).
Plaintiff Verdict $550,000 (Civil Rights).
Case Settled for Verdict Plus Attorneys’ Fees. October 15, 1984.

I want to sincerely thank you for your testimony with regard to the above case. Your expertise and opinions were totally accepted by the jury and were extremely helpful in the presentation of our case. It is interesting to note that the defense attorney went out of his way in other testimony and argument to try and refute your opinion since it’s obvious he felt your visibility study was extremely harmful to his case.
J. Gary Gwilliam October 20, 1984

I declared you as an expert and I was able to settle this case for $1,000,000.00. It seems that you did a number on him up in Tahoe and the threat of your presence made him much more realistic in his settlement demands.
Rex T. Kearney, Jr. September 27, 1982

Thank you for your extraordinary, professional services in assisting me to prepare this case for trial. The numerous trips you were required to make to shuttle both yourself and the films for processing and ultimate presentation in court were very much appreciated.
Clyde A. Thompson October 28, 1980