It is no secret in products liability matters that motions to exclude expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), often play a critical role in determining whether a case proceeds to trial. What litigants may not appreciate, however, is the extent to which the interpretation and application of Daubert and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence varies across federal courts. A recent petition for certiorari of a Ninth Circuit ruling in SQM North America Corp. v. City of Pomona, 750 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2014), highlighted the disparate application of Daubert and the need for the Supreme Court to revisit Daubert. Unfortunately, the Court declined to hear the appeal, passing up an opportunity to restore uniformity across the federal courts.
Premium Content For:
- Litigation Section