From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re TMI Litigation

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jan 4, 2000
199 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2000)

Summary

noting plaintiffs' burden to demonstrate chemical exposure and causation

Summary of this case from Tyger v. Precision Drilling Corp.

Opinion

Nos. 96-7623, 96-7624, 96-7625.

January 4, 2000.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Sylvia H. Rambo, Judge.

BEFORE: GREENBERG and McKEE, Circuit Judges, and GREENAWAY, District Judge.

The Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.


ORDER AMENDING OPINION

[2] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Slip Opinion filed in this case on November 2, 1999, [193 F.3d 613], be amended as follows:

On page 85, [193F.3d at 665], at the conclusion of the sentence, "With the parameters of our inquiry in mind, the teachings of Daubert and the aforementioned scientific principles as guideposts, we can now proceed to apply the yardstick of Daubert to the expert opinions at issue here and determine if they were properly excluded under the Rules of Evidence." insert as footnote number 93 the following text:

Our recent holding in Padillas v. Stork-Gamco, Inc., 186 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 1999), does not assist our inquiry. In Padillas, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's expert's report did not meet Daubert standards for admissibility. The District Court excluded the expert's report and granted summary judgment to the defendant without an in limine hearing. We reversed and remanded for an in limine hearing.

We were concerned with the process the District Court must generally use in exercising its gatekeeping role under Daubert. We noted that "[w]e have long stressed the importance of in limine hearings under Rule 104(a) in making the reliability determination required under Rule 702 and Daubert." Id. at 417 (quoting United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1241 (3d Cir. 1985); In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation, 916 F.2d 829, 854 (3d Cir. 1990) ("Paoli I"); and Hines v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 9126 F.2d 262, 272 (3d Cir. 1991)), especially when a Daubert challenge is made in the context of a summary judgment motion or where summary judgment will inevitably be granted if the proffered evidence is excluded. Thus, we expressed our belief that an in limine hearing is important, even in the absence of a request for such a hearing by the proponent of the expert testimony, because of the District Court's "independent responsibility for the proper management of complex litigation," and because the plaintiff "need[s] an opportunity to be heard" on the critical issues of scientific reliability and validity. Id. When afforded such an "opportunity to be heard," a plaintiff has a chance to have his or her expert demonstrate and explain the "good grounds" upon which the expert evidence rests. Id. at 418. Moreover, an opportunity to demonstrate the expert's "good grounds" is particularly important when the court's ruling on admissibility turns, in large part, upon "the factual dimensions of the expert evidence." Id. We did not intend to suggest that an in limine hearing is always required for Daubert gatekeeping. Rather, we held that "when the ruling on admissibility turns on factual issues, . . ., at least in the summary judgment context, failure to hold [and in limine] hearing may be an abuse of discretion." Id. at 418.

Padillas does not apply to our current inquiry because here, the District Court held extensive in limine hearings — lasting almost five full weeks — during which the trial plaintiffs were certainly given the "opportunity to be heard" in defense of their experts' submissions. Padillas certainly does not establish that a District Court must provide a plaintiff with an open-ended and never-ending opportunity to meet a Daubert challenge until plaintiff "gets it right" and it certainly does not establish that a plaintiff must be given the opportunity to meet a Daubert challenge with an expert's submission that is based on a new methodology completely different from the one the expert originally engaged in.

Further, increase each footnote following added footnote 93 by one numeral.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re TMI Litigation

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jan 4, 2000
199 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2000)

noting plaintiffs' burden to demonstrate chemical exposure and causation

Summary of this case from Tyger v. Precision Drilling Corp.

In TMI, the court stressed its belief that in limine hearings are important in making reliability determinations, even in the absence of a request for one; especially when the exclusion of evidence under Daubert will result in summary judgment being granted.

Summary of this case from Nelson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.

explaining that plaintiffs "do not have to demonstrate to the judge by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessments of their experts are correct, they only have to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that their opinions are reliable"

Summary of this case from In re Roundup Prods. Liab. Litig.

stating that in limine hearing is important where exclusion will result in summary judgment, and that magistrate judge abused discretion by excluding evidence without holding in limine hearing

Summary of this case from Colon v. BIC USA, Inc.
Case details for

In re TMI Litigation

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: TMI LITIGATION LORI DOLAN; JOSEPH GAUGHAN; RONALD WARD; ESTATE OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Jan 4, 2000

Citations

199 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2000)

Citing Cases

Goodman v. Burlington Coat Factory

The Third Circuit stresses "the importance of in limine hearings under Rule 104(a) in making the reliability…

Yoder v. Sportsman's Guide, Inc.

The question "is not whether a particular scientific opinion has the best foundation, or even whether the…