Judges as Gatekeepers: Requiring a "Plain English" Explanation of Expert Testimony and Meaningful Analysis of an Expert's "Principles and Methods"

16 January 2012 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

The Seventh Circuit recently made clear that a district court’s duty to rule on the admissibility of expert testimony requires a meaningful examination into whether a proffered expert’s analysis is methodologically sound. After reversing the plaintiff’s jury verdict as legally deficient, the court in ATA Airlines, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp. addressed the jury’s damages award, ruling that it was based on a fundamentally flawed regression analysis. 

The district court had allowed plaintiff’s expert, a forensic accountant, to present damages testimony based on a regression analysis, reasoning in part that “regression analysis is accepted, so this is not ‘junk science.’” The district court ruled that the defendant’s objections about how the expert constructed his regression analysis could be explored on cross-examination. But the jury accepted the expert’s testimony, awarding every penny he proposed as plaintiff’s damages.

The court of appeals concluded that the district court did not do enough to ensure that the expert’s testimony complied with Federal Rules of Evidence 702(2) & (3). Underscoring the need to conduct a detailed analysis of an expert’s method and its proposed application, Judge Posner devoted 13 pages to discussing the basics of regression analysis, including suggesting several sources as background reading, and various flaws in the expert’s approach. As the decision states, the court went “on at such length about the deficiencies of the regression analysis in order to remind district judges that, painful as it may be, it is their responsibility to screen expert testimony, however technical.” The decision concludes that the expert’s method was so flawed as to result in a complete absence of damages proof. 

The court of appeals also emphasized, as it has in the past, that a district judge may appoint its own expert under Fed. R. Evid. 706 to assist it in evaluating the parties’ proposed expert testimony. But, most strikingly, the court highlights the responsibility of the parties to explain the proffered expert testimony “in plain English,” suggesting that a lawyer’s inability to give that explanation is grounds enough for excluding an expert’s testimony: “If a party’s lawyer cannot understand the testimony of the party’s own expert, the testimony should be withheld from the jury. Evidence unintelligible to the trier or triers of fact has no place in a trial.”

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights