Also known as: FRE 702 · Fed. R. Evid. 702 · Rule 702
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence that permits a witness qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to testify in the form of an opinion if the proponent shows the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case.
DataShield Inc. sues NimbusCloud Software after a breach. DataShield retains Dr. Rivera as an expert on encryption but fails to disclose his identity until after the close of discovery. NimbusCloud moves to strike the testimony. The court excludes Dr. Rivera because the disclosure requirement was not met.
Carlos sues Apex Builders after a scaffold collapse. Apex offers Morgan, a safety consultant, to explain load calculations using field inspections and rules of thumb. Carlos objects that the opinions require specialized knowledge. The court requires Morgan to qualify under the expert rule rather than as a lay witness.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
DataShield offers Dr. Rivera to testify using a self-created algorithm never tested outside his lab. NimbusCloud moves to exclude the testimony. The court conducts a gatekeeping review and excludes the opinion because the methodology lacks testing and peer review.
Aaron sues Northern Fiber alleging dropped calls. Aaron designates Luis to testify on nationwide network capacity. Northern Fiber moves to compel a fuller disclosure. The court orders Aaron to state the precise subject matter on which Luis will offer opinions under the expert rule.
AgriGrain sues Midwest Harvesters after a combine damages grain. Midwest offers Dr. Ames to testify based on field demonstrations and proprietary tables. AgriGrain objects that the methods are nonstandard. The court applies a flexible reliability review to the technical testimony and denies the motion.
Pacific Logic sues United Cloud for algorithm infringement. United Cloud offers Owen who relies on informal laptop tests and extrapolates to real-world accuracy. Pacific Logic moves to exclude. The court finds an analytical gap and excludes the testimony.
The trial judge acts as gatekeeper and must determine whether the proponent has shown that the testimony rests on sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and a reliable application of those methods to the case facts.
The reliability requirement applies to all expert testimony based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Courts use a flexible, case-specific inquiry that may include the traditional factors or other appropriate indicia of reliability.
A party must disclose the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under the rule and, for witnesses not required to provide a written report, must state the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence.
Lay opinion testimony is inadmissible if it is based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of this rule. Testimony crossing that line requires the witness to qualify and satisfy the reliability requirements of the expert rule.
…district court properly applied this standard, and affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Frye was superseded by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2794, and remanded for us to consider the admissibility of plaintiffs' expert testimony under this new standard. B. Procedural Issues First, however,…