Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary doctrine established by three Supreme Court decisions that requires federal trial courts to serve as gatekeepers by assessing both the reliability and relevance of proffered expert testimony before admitting it. The doctrine permits exclusion when an expert's conclusions rest on an impermissible analytical gap between the data and the opinion offered. Appellate review of such gatekeeping decisions proceeds under an abuse of discretion standard.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Expert Exclusion Affirmed on Appeal
United Cloud offered a computer scientist to testify that its algorithm did not infringe a patent. The expert relied on an unreviewed internal script and informal laptop tests that he extrapolated to real-world conditions. The district court excluded the testimony after finding the methods unreliable and the conclusions unsupported by the data. On appeal the circuit court affirmed because the trial judge's gatekeeping determination fell within the range of permissible discretion.
State Court Applies Trilogy Standards
Omar sued Stone Manufacturing after a press guard failed and injured his hand. He offered a mechanical engineer who had inspected the machine for one hour and relied on prior experience with similar presses. The trial court excluded the testimony because the expert performed no measurements or simulations to connect his observations to his design-defect conclusion. The appellate court upheld the ruling under the abuse of discretion standard.
Put it into practice
Test Yourself
2
Practice Essays2
· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Hornbooks
Marsh v. Valyou977 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2007)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What standard of review applies to a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony under the Daubert trilogy?+
Appellate courts review such decisions for abuse of discretion. The trial court receives substantial latitude in performing its gatekeeping function and reversal occurs only when the decision is manifestly erroneous.
Supporting sources
May a court exclude expert testimony when an analytical gap exists between the data and the expert's conclusion?+
Yes. A court may exclude the testimony when it concludes that the gap between the facts or data and the proffered opinion is too great. The expert's conclusions must be supported by sufficient facts and reliable methodology.
Supporting sources
Does the Daubert reliability analysis apply only to scientific testimony?+
No. The analysis extends to all expert testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge. Trial courts retain discretion to consider the traditional Daubert factors or other appropriate indicia of reliability tailored to the field.
Supporting sources
EvidenceRelevancy and reasons for excluding relevant evidence · Expert testimonyUBEIntermediate