Summary
excluding four experts in a "simple vehicular accident" because the primary issue would be credibility and the jury should be allowed to determine if plaintiff's or defendant's rendition of the accident was more plausible
Summary of this case from Oaks v. Westfield Ins. Co.Opinion
Civil Action No: 03-2947, Section: "J" (3).
August 9, 2005
ORDER
On or about Friday, August 5, 2005, the Court requested counsel to submit copies of the reports and curriculum vitae of the four liability experts listed in the Pretrial Order, namely, Michael Sunseri, Mottie McClary, Michael DeHardy, and Martha Nichols-Ketchum. After reviewing the reports and curriculum vitae of the four liability experts, the Court finds that the testimony of the liability experts is unnecessary and will not be helpful to the jury in understanding the evidence or determining facts at issue.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert witness testimony, provides:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993), the Supreme Court interpreted Rule 702 as requiring the trial judge to ensure that an expert's testimony is both reliable and relevant to the case at hand. Daubert's gatekeeping function applies not only to "scientific" testimony, but to all expert testimony. Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 146-148 (1999). In evaluating whether an expert's testimony is reliable and relevant, the district judge must assess whether the "reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid" and also must determine whether the reasoning or methodology can be applied to the facts at issue. Curtis v. M S Petroleum, Inc., 174 F.3d 661, 668 (5th Cir. 1999). The proponent of expert testimony is not required to prove that the testimony is correct, but must only prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that the testimony is reliable." Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1064 (1999).
The parties to this simple vehicular accident have retained two experts per side, for a total of four "liability experts": a "trucking expert", two "accident reconstruction" experts, and a "bio-mechanical" expert. At the recent pretrial conference, counsel for each party indicated an intention to file a motion to strike the other side's experts as not meeting the requirements for expert testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert. Counsel also advised the court that they were in the process of taking depositions of the opposing experts in preparation for trial. The court instructed counsel to submit copies of the curriculum vitae and expert reports of each expert so that the court might exercise its gate-keeping role to determine the need for such testimony before the parties spent additional time and money preparing for trial. After reviewing the reports and qualifications of the experts, the court finds that none of the experts will be permitted to testify at the trial of this case.
While fuller reasons may be given at a later date, suffice it to say that the court finds that the proposed "expert" testimony is not necessary to assist the jury in understanding the evidence or determining any fact in issue. The primary issue is this case will be one of credibility, i.e., whether the jury believes the plaintiff's version of how the accident occurred, or the defendant's version. The jury can assess credibility and make appropriate factual findings without the aid of any expert testimony. With regard to the proposed "bio-mechanical" expert testimony, the court finds that it lacks sufficient reliability because the expert has failed to conduct any testing, has failed to inspect the vehicles involved, has failed to demonstrate that the proposed opinion is based on reasoning or methodology that is scientifically valid, or that has been peer reviewed. As the proponent of this expert testimony, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed testimony is reliable. The court finds defendant has failed to satisfy its burden. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the four liability experts listed by the parties, Michael Sunseri, Mottie McClary, Michael DeHardy, and Martha Nichols-Ketchum, shall be stricken from the Pretrial Order and will not be permitted to testify at trial.