From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hall v. Forest River, Inc. (N.D.Ind. 12-5-2006)

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
Dec 5, 2006
CAUSE NO. 3:04-CV-259RM (N.D. Ind. Dec. 5, 2006)

Opinion

CAUSE NO. 3:04-CV-259RM.

December 5, 2006


OPINION AND ORDER


Defendant Forest River moves to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. David Koronkiewicz because, among other things, his opinion that plaintiff Shellee Hall has reflex sympathetic dystrophy and a possibility of carpal tunnel and ulna nerve is not based on reliable scientific principles, as is required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Ms. Hall has not responded to the motion, and the time for response has passed.

A party seeking to admit opinion testimony under Rule 702 bears the burden of showing the requirements of admissibility have been met. See, e.g., McCorvey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 298 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002); Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico Bottling Co., 161 F.3d 77, 85 (1st Cir. 1998); Advisory Committee's Note to Rule 702 ("the proponent has the burden of establishing that the pertinent admissibility requirements are met by a preponderance of the evidence."). Ms. Hall has not satisfied that burden.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendant's motion to exclude the proposed testimony of Dr. David Koronkiewicz.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hall v. Forest River, Inc. (N.D.Ind. 12-5-2006)

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
Dec 5, 2006
CAUSE NO. 3:04-CV-259RM (N.D. Ind. Dec. 5, 2006)
Case details for

Hall v. Forest River, Inc. (N.D.Ind. 12-5-2006)

Case Details

Full title:SHELLEE J. HALL, Plaintiff v. FOREST RIVER, INC., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

Date published: Dec 5, 2006

Citations

CAUSE NO. 3:04-CV-259RM (N.D. Ind. Dec. 5, 2006)