Motion in Limine - United States District Court

Case 1:06-cv-22644-ASG Document 364 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2008 Page 14 of 45
methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable as
determined by the sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert; and (3) the testimony assists the
trier of fact, through the application of scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1259 (citing
City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chems., Inc., 158 F.3d 548, 562 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589)). The proponent of expert testimony bears the burden to show,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requirements have been met. Id. (quoting
McCorvey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 298 F.3d 1253, 1256 (11th Cir. 2002)).
i. Requisite Qualification
An expert can be qualified in various ways. “While scientific training or education
may provide possible means to qualify, experience in a field may offer another path to
expert status.” Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1260-61; Rule 702 (providing that expert status may
be based on “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education”). Several courts have
held that “an expert's training does not always need to be narrowly tailored to match the
exact point of dispute in a case.” McGee v. Evenflo Co., Case No. 02-259, 2003 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 25039, *8 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2003); see Stagl v. Delta Air Lines Inc., 117 F.3d 76,
82 (2d Cir. 1997) (proffered expert was qualified under Rule 702 despite his lack of
first-hand experience with the particular machinery at issue); Lovato v. Burlington N. &
Santa Fe R.R. Co., Case No. 00-2584, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16844, ** 12-13 (D.Colo.
June 24, 2002) (expert’s lack of professional experience with the railroad industry was not
dispositive as to the issue of his qualifications to serve as an expert); Colon v. BIC USA,
Inc., 199 F. Supp. 2d 53, 75-79 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (expert's training need not narrowly match
14