Also known as: Daubert criterion · Daubert standard · Daubert test · Daubert rule · Daubert factors
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A set of nonexclusive factors that federal courts may consider when assessing whether expert testimony rests on reliable principles and methods. The factors include 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. Courts apply the factors in a flexible, case-specific manner to fulfill their gatekeeping role under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Dorothy Daniels sued Delta Dynamics after a prototype drone lost control during testing. Delta offered an engineer who relied on a proprietary fluid-dynamics simulation never validated against actual drone crashes. The court examined whether the simulation had been tested, peer-reviewed, or shown to have a known error rate before deciding admissibility.
David Dawson sued Drake Logistics claiming its routing software infringed his patent. Drake presented a computer scientist whose benchmarking script had undergone only internal testing on a personal laptop. The court assessed the script's reliability through a flexible inquiry suited to technical expertise rather than laboratory science.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. The factors guide but do not rigidly control the reliability determination. Courts retain discretion to weigh them flexibly and may consider other appropriate indicia of reliability depending on the type of expertise involved.
Supporting sources
No. The reliability inquiry extends to all expert testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge. Courts may adapt the factors or use alternative indicia when the expertise is engineering, computer science, or experience-based rather than laboratory science.
Supporting sources
Absence of peer review is one factor courts consider but is not automatically disqualifying. The court conducts a case-specific assessment and may still admit the testimony if other indicia, such as internal validation or consistency with established principles, support reliability.
Supporting sources
No. Novelty alone does not render testimony inadmissible. The court evaluates whether the underlying principles are sound and reliably applied, even if the specific application to the facts at hand is new.
Supporting sources