Is the bar too high for survey evidence in wage and hour cases?

So, now that the backdrop for the survey in the Marlo v. UPS case has been laid, what then is the problem? The company that performed the survey had performed numerous surveys...that was their job. In addition, the witness, at least one of them, was the president of the survey company. The other witness was a Ph.D. Industrial Organization professor.

Here is a summary of the defense's motion to exclude the survey. (More discussion in follow-up posts)


However, any opinion or testimony about the Telephone
Survey must be excluded for two separate and independent reasons. First, any such
opinion or testimony is inadmissible because the results of the Telephone Survey
constitute hearsay of a type that is not reasonably relied upon by experts in her
particular field. Second, any such opinion or testimony is inadmissible under
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
509 U.S. 579 (1993), because

(I) the expert does not qualify as an "expert";
(2) the expert's opinion will not assist the trier offact;
and (3) the expert's opinion is not (a) "the
product of reliable principles and methods"; (b) based upon sufficient facts or data;
and (c) based upon a reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of
this case. Thus, any opinion or testimony by the expert about the fact, contents, results,
or purported scientific validity ofthe Telephone Survey must be excluded at trial.