Daubert challenges to economic testimony

What does it mean for an economic expert report to be ' Daubert Quality'?

While no sensible economist would guarantee that their economic expert testimony will survive a Daubert-type challenge in court, there are things that a reasonable economist can do to help increase the odds that their testimony will survive a challenge. The court is actually pretty clear on what a Daubert quality economic expert report is.

For instance in a recent case, See Elliott v. Kiesewetter, No. 03-1681 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2004) (unpublished) (Sloviter, Van Antwerpen, & Cowen, JJ.) the court upheld the economic asset valuation testimony in the matter. (Posted on www.daubertontheweb.com/blog702.html)

The court found:

*The expert had the qualifications to make the testimony that he made

*The methodology that he relied upon was generally accepted and widely used in his field

*The testimony was relevant and provided the jury with insights that they could not make on their own

Excerpts from the opinion follow:

"The Kiesewetters next contest the admissibility of the Beneficiaries’ expert witness. The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Fed.R.Evid. 702. We have summarized the requirements of Rule 702 as focusing on the “trilogy of restrictions on expert testimony: qualification, reliability and fit.” Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396,404 (3d Cir. 2003); see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

Here, the record shows the Beneficiaries’ expert possessed the specialized expertise necessary for5qualification, employed a methodology necessary for reliability, and gave relevant testimony that assisted the jury. See generally In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d717, 741-743 (3d Cir. 1994). The expert had been qualified previously and testified herethat his methodology is customarily relied upon in his industry for the valuation of assets,a subject beyond the experience of most jurors. For these reasons, we discern no abuseof discretion as to the admission of the Beneficiaries’ expert."