Conclusion - The Admissibility Of Expert Testimony
Both Unrein and Fireman’s Fund are good examples of judges acting as evidentiary “gatekeepers” to screen expert testimony to ensure that it “is not only relevant but reliable.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). As a practical matter, even in Minnesota where the Daubert standard has been rejected, the courts will engage in some level of “gatekeeping” to determine threshold admissibility issues. However, even if the expert opinion gets past the admissibility challenge, it will ultimately be up to a jury to decide how much weight to give the expert’s testimony.
The lawyer defending a product liability lawsuit, whether in federal court or in Minnesota state court, must therefore be alert to the possibility of moving for summary judgment, or by motion in limine, to exclude expert opinions that the lawyer has reason to believe do not meet the standards for admissibility. Although Daubert may represent more of a “strict scrutiny” approach to expert testimony while Frye-Mack is more liberal and flexible, both lines of cases provide standards against which expert opinions can be tested and found deficient.