23 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,452 times 228 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.
259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,339 times
Holding that the burden to show substantial justification or harmlessness is on the party who made the late disclosure
U.S. v. Hankey
203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 652 times
Holding that "far from requiring trial judges to mechanically apply the Daubert factors — or something like them — to both scientific and non-scientific testimony, Kumho Tire heavily emphasizes that judges are entitled to broad discretion when discharging their gatekeeping function"
Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc.
740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 364 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court erred by "pass[ing] its greatest concern about [the expert's] testimony to the jury to determine" and there was little "indication that the district court assessed, or made findings regarding, the scientific validity or methodology of [another expert's] proposed testimony"
Elsayed Mukhtar v. Cal. State Univ., Hayward
299 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 344 times 6 Legal Analyses
Finding that the plaintiff's “racial discrimination case [was] a disagreement among academic professionals, which is something that Title VII does not proscribe”
Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby
726 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013) Cited 226 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding work was for hire due in part to hiring party's “active involvement in the creative process, coupled with its power to reject pages and request that they be redone”
Dura Automotive Systems of Indiana, Inc. v. CTS Corp.
285 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2002) Cited 263 times
Holding that expert cannot give opinion that is "just parroting the opinion of [another] expert"
U.S. v. Duncan
42 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 1994) Cited 319 times
Holding expert witnesses "act outside of [their] limited role" when they "attempt to substitute [their] judgment for the jury's"
Larson v. Kempker
414 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2005) Cited 184 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that expert testimony that "is so fundamentally unreliable that it can offer no assistance to the jury" must be excluded, but "otherwise, the factual basis of the testimony goes to the weight of the evidence"
United States v. Rahm
993 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 137 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that encompassed in the determination of whether expert testimony is relevant is whether it is helpful to the jury, which is the "central concern" of Rule 702
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 95,990 times 660 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 Cited 46,316 times 322 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,844 times 260 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,189 times 75 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony
Fed. R. Evid. 703 Cited 4,752 times 26 Legal Analyses
Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted
Rule 704 - Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
Fed. R. Evid. 704 Cited 3,044 times 15 Legal Analyses
Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."

Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al

23 Cited authorities

Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

Holding that the burden to show substantial justification or harmlessness is on the party who made the late disclosure

Holding that "far from requiring trial judges to mechanically apply the Daubert factors — or something like them — to both scientific and non-scientific testimony, Kumho Tire heavily emphasizes that judges are entitled to broad discretion when discharging their gatekeeping function"

Finding that the plaintiff's “racial discrimination case [was] a disagreement among academic professionals, which is something that Title VII does not proscribe”

Holding work was for hire due in part to hiring party's “active involvement in the creative process, coupled with its power to reject pages and request that they be redone”

Holding that expert cannot give opinion that is "just parroting the opinion of [another] expert"

Holding expert witnesses "act outside of [their] limited role" when they "attempt to substitute [their] judgment for the jury's"

Holding that expert testimony that "is so fundamentally unreliable that it can offer no assistance to the jury" must be excluded, but "otherwise, the factual basis of the testimony goes to the weight of the evidence"

Holding that encompassed in the determination of whether expert testimony is relevant is whether it is helpful to the jury, which is the "central concern" of Rule 702

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

Adopting the Daubert standard

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."