Posted by Susan J. Levy
In a Daubert motion, the non-moving party has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of proof that a proper foundation exists for the admissibility of that party's proferred expert testimony. Allison v. McGhan Med. Corp., 184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).
Posted by Susan J. Levy
In Wilson v. TASER International, Inc., Appeal No. 08-13810 (11th Cir. 2008), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s Order granting TASER’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Plaintiff’s expert on the grounds that his opinions were unreliable. The Court’s willingness to scrutinize the qualifications of Plaintiff’s expert and to examine the basis for his opinions, particularly in a case where the expert was not merely promoting junk science, should encourage defense counsel to file Daubert motions whenever the facts allow.
Posted by Susan J. Levy
Enacted in 2005, O.C.G.A. § 24-6-67.1 provides the criteria for determining whether an expert witness will be allowed to testify in a civil case. This statute provides in pertinent part:
A witness qualified as an expert, based on training, education, experience etc., may testify only if:
(1) The testimony rests on sufficient facts or data which are or will be admitted into evidence at the hearing or trial;
(2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(3) The expert witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
O.C.G.A. § 26-6-67.1(b).
