Eastern District of California Judge William B. Shubb certified a class of thousands of former NCAA Division I volunteer coaches who had sued the NCAA for anticompetitive compensation prohibitions. Originally published in...more
In high-stakes personal injury litigation, a qualified vocational expert with proven experience can mean the difference between a credible damages narrative and one that falls apart under scrutiny. Join IMS on Thursday,...more
In high-stakes litigation, expert testimony that cannot withstand a Daubert or Robinson challenge can derail even the most well-prepared case. A failed Daubert or Robinson challenge can leave attorneys without their key...more
Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 govern the admissibility of lay and expert opinion testimony, respectively, in federal courts. Rule 701(c) helps paint the line between the two, providing that an opinion “based on...more
A recent decision by Senior District Judge Robert Payne on a Daubert motion in class action litigation against a pension fund offers some helpful lessons on challenging expert witnesses in the EDVA. Trauernicht v. Genworth...more
Expert testimony is the tool that enables litigators to elucidate concepts that require scientific, technical or specialized knowledge. However, a proponent cannot introduce expert testimony without demonstrating under F.R.E....more
If you don’t know where a line is, you can’t say whether someone has crossed it. That principle applies in spades to expert witnesses, particularly when their role in the case calls on them to help the jury understand where...more
Discovery deadlines exist for a reason. Although there are exceptions to every rule – and often a rule dictating how to handle such exceptions – litigants in federal court are expected to show their evidentiary cards in a...more
Peer-reviewed literature can be a powerful tool in attacking an opposing expert’s opinions. A solid, on-point article can do more than merely satisfy several of the so-called Daubert factors for assessing reliability – by...more
Federal Rule of Evidence 702—Testimony by Expert Witnesses—was promulgated in 1975 when Congress first enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence. Original Rule 702 simply stated that “[i]f scientific, technical, or other...more
On April 22, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found in Moore v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00056-LAG (11th Cir. April 22, 2021), that a surgeon serving as an expert who had not used the...more
It’s not easy getting a drug or device to market. From concept to launch, it takes years of work and the involvement of countless professionals from the engineering, medicine and regulatory disciplines. If the product becomes...more
It has been a tough year for science. On the social-science front, it seems that we have entered a phase where no one believes the polls. To conservative Trump supporters, the consensus of data showing the President well...more
The Fourth District Court of Appeal recently issued a reminder that Daubert is the standard for all disputes regarding admissibility of expert testimony in Florida, and applies retroactively even where Frye was the standard...more
In In re: Accutane Litigation (A-4952-16T1) — an appeal decided just 10 days after oral argument — the New Jersey Appellate Division applied the New Jersey Supreme Court’s landmark decision In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J....more
Certifying an antitrust class under Rule 23 has become a battle. In the last 20 years, courts have been changing the game around Rule 23 interpretation, and rigorous analysis at class certification has made briefing...more
In a recently issued order, ALJ Lord granted-in-part and denied-in-part Respondents’ motion in limine to exclude certain testimony of Complainants’ expert. Certain Radio Frequency Microneedle Dermatological Treatment Devices...more
In a recently issued pair of orders, ALJ Lord denied both Respondents’ and Complainants’ motions in limine to exclude certain expert testimony. Certain Radio Frequency Microneedle Dermatological Treatment Devices and...more
Prior to 1993, federal and state courts used the standard enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), to determine whether scientific evidence should be admitted at a trial. ...more
Fall has descended upon us, along with that nip in the air and the aroma of pumpkin spice. All of these herald our latest edition of Pro Te: Solutio, which contains three fascinating articles on topics of current interest in...more
On October 15, 2018, in the matter of Richard Delisle vs. Crane Co., et al., the Supreme Court of Florida unequivocally reaffirmed that Frye remains the standard for the admission of expert testimony. This reaffirmation comes...more
On October 15, 2018, the Supreme Court of Florida invalidated the 2013 legislative changes to the Florida Evidence Code that adopted the modern Daubert standard for admissibility of expert testimony, returning Florida to the...more
On August 1, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued a seminal ruling elucidating the state’s standard for admission of expert testimony in civil litigation. In a unanimous decision, the Court adopted the Daubert factors for...more
On August 1, 2018, the Supreme Court of New Jersey effectively ended more than 2,000 Accutane lawsuits when it reversed an Appellate Division panel decision that had reversed a trial court’s exclusion of plaintiffs’ expert...more
On March 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of Florida heard argument in a case that presents the Court with an opportunity to resolve whether Frye or Daubert will be the governing standard for admission of expert testimony going...more