banner ad
Experts Logo

articles

Ninth Circuit Overturns Daubert Exclusion, Again Noting Trial Court Is A Gatekeeper, Not A Fact Finder

Originally Published in Financial Complexity Made Clear, June 2014

By: David Nolte
Tel: (213) 787-4100
Email Mr. Nolte

Website: www.fulcrum.com

View Profile on Experts.com.


In a recent case involving the City of Pomona ("Pomona") v. SQM North America Corporation ("SQM"), Pomona alleged that SQM's importation of sodium nitrate for fertilizer caused a perchlorate contamination in the city. Although the district court excluded under Daubert the expert testimony of Pomona's expert witness on causation, the Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling, stating that "facts casting doubt on the credibility of an expert witness and contested facts regarding the strength of a particular scientific method are questions reserved for the fact finder". The case was remanded for trial.

Expert testimony admissibility is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which states:

"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, if

  • the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
  • the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
  • the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case."

The Supreme Court interpreted this rule in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma., Inc., as providing judges "some gatekeeping responsibility in deciding questions of the admissibility of proffered expert testimony." The Daubert ruling also emphasized that the trial court must assess the principles and methodology, not on the conclusions generated:

"vigorous cross examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence"

This was reiterated in numerous subsequent rulings, including:

  • Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 564-65 (9th Cir. 2010) described
    • the trial court's role in evaluating proffered expert testimony as "a gatekeeper, not a fact finder"
    • the test "is not the correctness of the expert's conclusions but the soundness of his methodology, and when an expert meets the threshold established by Rule 702, the expert may testify and the fact finder decides how much weight to give that testimony"
    • "Challenges that go to the weight of the evidence are within the province of a fact finder, not a trial court judge. A district court should not make credibility determinations that are reserved for the jury."
  • Alaska Rent-A-Car, 738 F.3d at 969: The judge is "supposed to screen the jury from unreliable nonsense opinions, but not exclude opinions merely because they are impeachable."
  • Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457, 463 (9th Cir. 2014): Simply put, "[t]he district court is not tasked with deciding whether the expert is right or wrong, just whether his testimony has substance such that it would be helpful to a jury."

In Pomona v. SQM, the Ninth Circuit concluded that

"Expert testimony may be excluded by a trial court under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence only when it is either irrelevant or unreliable. Facts casting doubt on the credibility of an expert witness and contested facts regarding the strength of a particular scientific method are questions reserved for the fact finder."

Since Daubert, and the subsequent 1999 Supreme Court decision in Kumho Tire Co. vs. Carmichael clarified that the Daubert criteria for challenges to expert witnesses extended to non-scientific experts, the number of challenges to expert witnesses rapidly increased, with a high degree of successful exclusions. While this prior success rate has encouraged lawyers to continue the trial tactic, rulings such as the ones cited above indicate that some trial courts have exceeded their intended role under Daubert and are inappropriately requiring parties to win the case twice.


David Nolte is a principal at Fulcrum Financial Inquiry LLP with over 30 years experience performing forensic accounting, auditing, business appraisals, and related financial consulting. He regularly serves as an expert witness.

©Copyright - All Rights Reserved

DO NOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION BY AUTHOR.

Related articles

Garibaldi-Group-Logo.jpg

10/6/2017· Accounting

Confirming Worst Suspicions: Hire a Forensic Expert To Find Hidden Assets

By: Michael J. Garibaldi CPA, ABV, CFF, CGMA

When a client voiced strong suspicions that her soon-to-be ex-husband was hiding assets, her attorney investigated the claim but found nothing amiss. However, he hired a forensic accounting expert to help ensure his client would receive an equitable share of the marital estate. The expert turned up a trunkload of hidden treasure - undeclared cash income and property "stashed" under the names of the husband's mother and siblings.

Michael-Pakter-Forensic-Accounting-Expert-Photo.jpg

9/7/2017· Accounting

A Forensic Engagement

By: Michael D. Pakter

Mr. Bad Actor is a 61–year-old male who is the senior executive of the Unlucky Transportation Company. He has been in that position for more than ten years. Before his employment at the company, he worked for a series of unsuccessful transportation companies, where both he and other stakeholders lost most of their investment. He has ongoing legal and financial problems resulting from these prior business failures and from his failed marriage.

Fulcrum-Inquiry-Logo.jpg

7/16/2014· Accounting

The True Cost Of Lowering Audit Fees Is Increased Restatement Risk

By: David Nolte

In association with general cost cutting measures over recent years, many companies have pressured their vendors to reduce fees. This downward pressure has extended to the accounting firms hired to provide independent audit opinions, resulting in a significant drop in audit fees. According to Audit Analytics, audit fees in 2012 were $472 per $1 million of revenue, the lowest amount since 2004. The question is whether audit quality has been sacrificed in order to achieve these reductions.

;
Experts.com-No broker Movie Ad
Unicourt Logo Button

Follow us

linkedin logo youtube logo rss feed logo