![]() ![]() Under Daubert, the trial court must act as a gatekeeper to assure that the expert testimony is both reliable and relevant. Under FRE 702, expert evidence is admissible if (1) the witness is qualified, (2) the opinion will help the trier of fact, (3) the opinion is based on sufficient facts or data, (4) the opinion is based on reliable principles, and (5) the expert reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. He concluded that the samples matched SQMNA’s imported sodium nitrate and concluded SQMNA was the source of the contamination on that basis. The expert had samples collected from Pomona’s groundwater, analyzed the isotopic composition of the perchlorate, and compared his results to a reference database of known perchlorate sources. The expert used a stable isotope analysis methodology based on the Guidance Manual for Forensic Analysis of Perchlorate in Groundwater using Chlorine and Oxygen Isotopic Analysis (“ Guidance Manual”), a compilation of 12 peer-reviewed articles describing the methodology. The Ninth Circuit first addressed the district court’s exclusion of Pomona’s expert witness. The parties stipulated to dismissal of the case to permit both parties to appeal the district court’s decisions.ĭaubert analysis of Pomona’s proposed expert witness testimony. SQMNA subsequently brought an in limine motion to exclude testimony by Pomona’s expert witness, who used a “stable isotope analysis” methodology to conclude that the perchlorate contamination in Pomona’s groundwater was caused by SQMNA’s sodium nitrate. ![]() The Ninth Circuit, however, upheld the district court’s earlier denial of defendant SQMNA’s motion for summary judgment, claiming that Pomona’s suit was barred on two grounds: (1) California’s “economic loss rule,” and (2) the three-year statute of limitations for injury to real property. The Ninth Circuit reversed, however, finding that the district court abused its discretion. The district court excluded Pomona’s expert witness testimony on this issue as unreliable. 579 (1993)( Daubert) and subsequent cases. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. The district court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether that expert opinion testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 and legal standards established in the seminal case of Daubert v. Pomona retained an expert witness who opined that that SQMNA’s imported sodium nitrate was the primary source of the perchlorate in the City’s groundwater. May 2, 2014) primarily concerned the City of Pomona’s (“Pomona”) action against SQM North America Corporation (“SQMNA”), alleging SQMNA caused perchlorate contamination in the City’s groundwater. The Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on reversing the district court for the Central District of California regarding the admissibility of the opinion offered by the plaintiff’s expert regarding the source of perchlorate contamination in groundwater, but upholding the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations and “economic loss rule” issues.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |