Dispactches from the courtroom 1.20.2004

A ruling in support of the scientific method

Daubert motions commonly strike fear in the hearts of economic experts. However, as the courts become more and more aware of the techniques that are used by experts, the gatekeeping role of the courts has the potential of becoming less of a fearful burden for experts. In fact the gatekeeping role can actually help experts overall by keeping the level of work at a higher level and allow them to actually dig deeper into some of the more relevant scientific issue that underlie the economic expert analysis.

As reported on Daubertontheweb, The CA Court of Appeals upheld an exclusion of economic damage testimony that did rely on sound science. See below.

Daubertontheweb:

Its expert insisted that the Puerto Rico market was unique, and so he did not consult data from other markets or perform any regression analysis. "A witness who invokes 'my expertise' rather than analytic strategies widely used by specialists is not an expert as Rule 702 defines that term," said the Court of Appeals. If the expert "could or would not explain how his conclusions met the Rule's requirements, he was not entitled to give expert testimony. As we so often reiterate:

'An expert who supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process.'"

See Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. WH-TV Broad. Corp., No. 04-1635 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2005) (Easterbrook, Kanne, & Evans, JJ.).