Three Experts’ Opinions Deemed Reliable and Relevant Under Daubert Standard United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana, January 7, 2019

LOUISIANA — The defendants Ford and Cummins filed motions in limine to exclude or limit the expert testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts Dr. Brent Staggs, Dr. Murray Finkelstein, and Christopher Depasquale. The plaintiff Victor Michel filed suit in state court against multiple defendants, alleging that his exposure to asbestos while working as a mechanic and generator service technician caused him to contract peritoneal mesothelioma.

Under Daubert, the district court “is to act as a gatekeeper to ensure that ‘any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.'”  The court’s gatekeeping function involved a two-part inquiry: (1) determining whether the expert testimony was reliable and (2) whether the expert’s reasoning or methodology fit the facts of the case and whether it would assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence.

The court held that all three experts’ testimony was reliable and relevant, and therefore denied the defendants’ joint motions in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of Drs. Staggs and Finkelstein and Mr. Depasquale.

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available at 2019 WL 118008.

Leave a Reply

Next ArticleAsbestos Litigation Remains Strong Impetus for Inclusion on Judicial Hellhole Jurisdiction List