Buy This Entire Record For
Below v. Yokohama Tire Corp.
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
February 21, 2017
JOSHUA J. BELOW, by his guardian, DEBRA BELOW, CHARLIE ELIZABETH BELOW, a minor by her Guardian ad Litem, DANIEL A. ROTTIER, and PATRICK JOSHUA BELOW, a minor by his Guardian ad Litem, DANIEL A. ROTTIER, Plaintiffs, Attorney General United States
YOKOHAMA TIRE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. and DEAN HEALTH PLAN, INC., Involuntary Plaintiff, and STAR BLUE BELOW-KOPF, by her Guardian ad Litem, TERESA K. KOBELT, Intervening Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM M. CONLEY DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is scheduled for trial to begin on March 6, 2017. In
advance of the parties' final pretrial conference, which
will take place on February 24, 2017, at 1:00 p.m, this order
addresses defendants' motion in limine to
exclude testimony from plaintiffs' expert, Gary Derian.
admissibility of expert testimony in federal courts is
governed principally by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509
U.S.579 (1993). Rule 702 provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.
district court functions as a “gatekeeper, ”
determining whether proffered expert testimony is relevant
and reliable. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589; see also
United States v. Johnsted, 30 F.Supp.3d 814, 816 (W.D.
Wis. 2013) (expert testimony must be “not only
relevant, but reliable”). Although expert testimony is
“liberally admissible under the Federal Rules of
Evidence, ” Lyman v. St. Jude Medical S.C.,
Inc., 580 F.Supp.2d 719, 723 (E.D. Wis. 2008), the
Seventh Circuit has held that expert testimony must satisfy
the following three-part test under Rule 702 as informed by
(1) the witness must be qualified “as an expert by
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, ”
(2) the expert's reasoning or methodology underlying the
testimony must be scientifically reliable, Daubert,
509 U.S. at 592-93; and
(3) the testimony must assist the trier of fact to understand
the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed.R.Evid.
Ervin v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 492 F.3d 901,
904 (7th Cir. 2007). “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 ...