Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Construction Design and Defect Litigation: Using Daubert/Frye to Challenge Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2016 1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific Today’s faculty features: Michael P . O'Day, Partner, DLA Piper , Baltimore Nathan D. Sinning, Partner, Alston & Bird , Los Angeles The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10 .
Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-871-8924 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.
Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar. A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email that you will receive immediately following the program. For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35.
Program Materials FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left - • hand column on your screen. • Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. • Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon. •
Strafford Publishing Presents: Construction Design and Defect Litigation - Using Daubert/Frye to Challenge Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony May 3, 2016 Michael P. O’Day, Esq. Nathan Sinning, Esq. A LSTON + B IRD LLP DLA Piper LLP 333 S. Hope St., 16th Floor 6225 Smith Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Baltimore, Maryland 21209 213.576.1000 410.580.4293 www.alston.com www.dlapiper.com
Daubert/Frye Motions General Purpose/Reason For Bringing Motion • It’s pronounced “Dow - Burt” • Daubert/Frye motions used as rule of evidence to attempt to exclude expert testimony • Motion can typically be brought at any time before trial – Typically as motion in limine – Check local rules 6
Daubert/Frye History and Evolution Frye v. United States , 292 F. 1013 (D.D. Cir. 1923) • 1923 Federal Court appellate ruling regarding admissibility of polygraph evidence • Frye rule – “general acceptance” • May exclude accurate and reliable results if the theories are too new • Minority standard – still used in a handful of states including California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington 7
Daubert/Frye History and Evolution Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc ., 951 F.2d 1128 (9th Cir. 1991) • The “scientific knowledge” standard • Birth defect caused by Benedictine ingestion • Defendant files for summary judgment • Epidemiologist declaration – no study showing a causal link • Plaintiff’s expert – relied on animal, pharmacological studies 8
Daubert/Frye History and Evolution Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc ., 951 F.2d 1128 (9th Cir. 1991) • District Court holds testimony inadmissible citing the Frye “general acceptance” rule – Summary judgment granted • Ninth Circuit affirmed • Supreme Court vacated and reversed – Frye standard did not survive the adoption of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – However, the trial court is still the “Gatekeeper” 9
Daubert/Frye History and Evolution Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc ., 951 F.2d 1128 (9th Cir. 1991) Supreme Court set out these nonexhaustive factors: 1. Whether the theory or technique presented as expert testimony and evidence can be (and has been) tested; 2. Whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; 3. The known or potential rate of error; 4. The existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation; and “General acceptance.” 5. 10
Daubert/Frye History and Evolution General Electric Co. vs. Joiner , 522 U.S. 126 (1997) • Plaintiff failed to show that exposure to PCBs was the cause of his lung cancer • Supreme Court further clarifies the expert testimony standard – Proper standard of review is abuse of discretion – Trial judge’s authority under “gatekeeping function” includes rationale and conclusions – not just methodologies 11
Daubert/Frye History and Evolution Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) • Tire blow out caused fatal accident – Plaintiff’s expert stated defect in the tire – Physical inspection and no evidence of other issue • Summary judgment granted • 11 th Circuit reversed and remanded – Stating Daubert limited to scientific testimony 12
Daubert/Frye History and Evolution Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) • Supreme Court states that Daubert applies to all expert witness testimony – Reliability factors not a definitive checklist, just factors court uses at its discretion • 2000 – Congress amends Rule 702 – 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 edu-cation, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. 13
Is the Expert Qualified? • Must be qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” – Court is looking for “sufficient specialized knowledge” to assist the trier -of-fact • No perfect formula, case by case basis • Court’s “gatekeeping” role includes making sure the expert does not exceed the scope of his/her expertise 14
Is the Expert Qualified? United States ex rel. M.L. Young Const. v. Austin Co. 2005 WL 6000505 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 29, 2005) • Plaintiff’s expert’s CV showed experience as a construction manager and construction expert • Defense disputes qualifications stating the expert did not publish any articles on scheduling or delay damages • Court stated his previous experience was enough and publication of articles was not necessary 15
Is the Expert Qualified? Weitz Co., LLC v. MacKenzie House, LLC 2009 WL 4030756 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 19, 2009) • Engineer expert provided opinion as to topics he was qualified for and topics not qualified for • The court did not want to go line by line in report and described generally the topics that were excluded • Court stated it would entertain objections if/when expert gave improper testimony 16
Is the Expert Qualified? Freesen, Inc. v. Boart Longyear Co. 2009 WL 4923598 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2009) • Plaintiff’s expert’s qualifications challenged in connection with lost opportunity damages claim • Expert was a CPA and had extensive experience in construction accounting • Court holds he was allowed to testify – The “alleged lack of experience in one specific area goes to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility.” 17
Is the Testimony Reliable? • Courts have held that when an expert’s opinion is “so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury,” the opinion should be excluded. – Factual basis for testimony typically applied toward credibility, not admissibility – However, the court has broad discretion to decide reliability • The court’s focus will typically be on the expert’s methodology and soundness of the general principles 18
Is the Testimony Reliable? Steadfast Insurance Co. v. SMX 98, Inc. , 2009 WL 890398 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2009) • Expert provided opinion as to the reasonableness of a premium insurance rate based on various assumptions • Court allowed the testimony • Court held that the assumptions were not clearly erroneous or unfounded based on the records – Any issues could be dealt with in cross- examination 19
Recommend
More recommend
