Published on:

NEW ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE BOLSTERS DAUBERT: A POWERFUL TOOL IN ANY GEORGIA INSURANCE DEFENSE ATTORNEY’S TOOLBOX – Part 3 of a 3-Part Series

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).

The Eleventh Circuit found that the non-movant must persuade the Court that its expert’s testimony satisfies Fed. R. Evid. 702 as recognized in Daubert, so it stands to reason that in Georgia, the non-movant now has the burden of persuading the Court that his expert satisfies the dictates of O.C.G.A. § 24-9-67.1.

Furthermore, the non-movant in a Daubert motion is not entitled to have the court resolve disputed issues of fact in the non-movant’s favor, as in a summary judgment motion, since the issue of whether an expert’s testimony is admissible is not an issue of fact. General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 143 (1997).

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

Comments are closed.