Also known as: Daubert standard · Daubert hearing · Daubert motion · Daubert rule · Daubert test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The trial court acts as gatekeeper to ensure that the testimony is both relevant and reliable. Reliability is evaluated through a flexible, case-specific inquiry that may consider whether the expert's theory or methodology has been tested, subjected to peer review and publication, possesses a known or potential error rate, maintains standards controlling its operation, and enjoys general acceptance in the relevant field.
Dwight Dorsey sued Decker Electronics after suffering hearing loss allegedly caused by a defective component. Decker offered an acoustics expert who relied on a self-developed testing protocol never validated outside the company. The district court held a hearing and excluded the testimony because the protocol had not been tested, peer-reviewed, or shown to have a known error rate.
Denise Donovan sued Dynamic Solutions for injuries from a workplace chemical exposure. Her expert extrapolated from animal studies to human causation without supporting data. The district court excluded the opinion, finding too great an analytical gap between the studies and the proffered conclusion.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Deborah Dunn sued Duarte Shipping after a cargo-handling system failed. Duarte offered an engineer who used a proprietary simulation model never validated against actual accident data. The court applied a flexible reliability analysis to the technical testimony and admitted the opinion after finding the underlying engineering principles sound.
Dylan Duffy sued Drake Logistics after developing complications from a medical device. Drake offered experts whose causation opinions rested on untested hypotheses. Following a pretrial hearing, the court excluded the testimony for lack of reliable methodology.
Devon Drake and other employees sued Wal-Mart alleging gender discrimination in pay and promotion. Plaintiffs offered a statistician whose regression analysis contained unsupported extrapolations. The district court excluded the testimony, and the appellate court affirmed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
Dominic Drake faced court-martial charges and sought to introduce polygraph results supporting his truthfulness. The military judge excluded the evidence after determining that the technique lacked sufficient scientific validation. The exclusion was upheld on appeal.
The trial court must act as gatekeeper to ensure that expert testimony is both relevant and reliable before it reaches the jury. The court conducts a preliminary assessment of the reasoning and methodology underlying the testimony.
No. The analysis extends to all expert testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge. Courts retain discretion to consider the traditional factors or other appropriate indicia of reliability depending on the nature of the expertise.
Appellate courts review a district court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony for abuse of discretion. A court may exclude testimony when there is too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion offered.
No. The factors are illustrative rather than mandatory. Courts apply a flexible, case-specific inquiry and may consider any indicia that bear on reliability, especially when the expertise is technical rather than purely scientific.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. <!-- acedexams opinion md v1 -- Case information - Citation: 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993) Majority opinion Opinion of Judge…