United States: Do Daubert Motions Really Work?

Last Updated: November 7 2016
Article by John L. Tate

Part One, Product Liability Law & Strategy, October 2016

More than twenty years into the Daubert era, a surprising number of litigators still have doubts and disagreements about the effectiveness of motions in limine challenging the admissibility of federal court opinion testimony under FRE 702.  Among the concerns commonly expressed by the trial bar is the perception that so-called Daubert motions are a long shot at best, often not worth the time and effort.

Two recent studies shed new light on these attitudes.

In October 2015, the Searle Civil Justice Institute, part of the Law & Economics Center at George Mason School of Law, published an empirical examination titled Timing and Disposition of Daubert Motions in Federal District Courts (hereafter "Searle").1  Covering the years 2003-2014, this report examined the outcomes of over 2,127 Daubert motions from 91 federal district courts.

In May 2016, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) published a report studying Daubert trends and outcomes for the years 2000-2015.2  The PwC report focused exclusively on financial experts but used a comparable sample size of 2,014 cases.

These two studies are remarkable for the number of decisions analyzed by the researchers.  A plethora of articles, commentaries, and blogs are available on nearly every aspect of Daubert practice, but virtually all of them are either more narrow in scope or draw conclusions from fewer decisions.  Indeed, the authors of the Searle report assert their 2015 study is "the most comprehensive view of Daubert practice in federal civil litigation to date." Id. at 2.  Even so, this study does not purport to include all the federal court Daubert decisions between 2003 and 2014.  Four years—2006, 20011, 2012, and 2013—were heavily sampled but  "only a handful" of cases came from 2003, 2004, or 2014.  Id. at 4, fn 17.

The study sample in PwC's report is comparably sized, but the international accounting giant also could contend for the "most comprehensive view" since the 2016 publication is a follow up to PwC's 2014 report analyzing 7,299 cases—albeit all involving financial testimony.3
 
Before delving into the insights afforded by these large data sets, a different kind of publication deserves mention at the outset because it is a cornerstone for almost any meaningful discussion of  Daubert practice.

The Federal Judicial Center's Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence,4 first published in 1994 and currently in its third edition, is a treasure trove of authoritative and instructive essays by respected scientists, engineers, doctors, statisticians, accountants, and other professionals.  The refined and expanded Reference Manual (3d)  is a first rate and reliable treatise on the subjects most likely to be the target of a Daubert challenge.  Even better, the Reference Manual is probably on the book shelf of nearly every federal district judge in the country.

We will return to this important reference, and look at some of the mechanics of successful Daubert motions, in Part Two.

Part One: What do the data say?

Since plaintiffs bear the burden of proof in nearly every civil case, and many lawsuits require admissible opinion testimony to carry that burden, it is not surprising the vast majority of Daubert motions are made by defendants.  In the Searle study, defendants made 71% of the motions while plaintiffs made only 29%.

In fact, almost half of the cases analyzed in the Searle report involved multiple Daubert motions.  Based on an average of 2.1 motions per case, it seems likely that parties anticipating a Daubert motion against one or more opinion witnesses often elect to challenge at least one witness on the other side in an effort to keep a level playing field.

Nearly two-thirds of the motions challenged medical or technical opinions.  "Medical" witnesses, defined to include physicians, psychologists, toxicologists, and allied medical professionals, made up a hefty 31% of the Daubert challenges in the Searle study.  "Engineering" witnesses, including all types of technical and environmental testimony, were close behind at 24%.  Accountants comprised 10% of the challenged witnesses and economists another 5%.

These data likely ring true with attorneys who routinely make motions to exclude unreliable opinions.  Medical science, engineering, and financial witnesses giving opinions on damages often can be professional witnesses for hire and, unfortunately, arguably are the most likely to omit significant facts or employ questionable methods.  These witnesses depend on repeat business and may bend the rules just to stay employed.

But the burden of proof makes a difference, too.  Plaintiffs usually do not have the same make-it-or-break-it motivation when challenging opinion testimony offered by defense witnesses.  Daubert rulings that eliminate or greatly impair essential elements of a plaintiff's case can lead directly to summary judgment for the defendant.  By contrast, a successful challenge of a defense witness usually does not result in summary judgment for the plaintiff.  With more at stake, therefore, defendants can be more motivated to challenge admissibility of opinion testimony.

Tort lawsuits draw the most Daubert challenges.  Given the frequency of challenges to medical and technical testimony compared to challenges to witnesses in other fields, the prevalence of tort cases is not surprising.  Just over 50% of the cases analyzed in the Searle report were tort actions, even though tort claims comprise only 30% of the total civil caseload in federal court.

Similarly, challenges to accountants and business experts are most prevalent in contract cases; legal witnesses are the most prevalent witnesses in IP litigation; and, police or law enforcement witnesses are most prevalent in civil rights cases.

According to the Searle study, the success rate of Daubert motions depends in the first instance on the moving party.  For defendants, the "batting average" for obtaining at least some relief as the result of a Daubert challenge is .500.   The "batting average" for outright wins, i.e., a home run that grants all the relief requested, is .250—exactly half the win rate for partial relief.

Understandably, the authors of the Searle report use true percentages, not "batting averages,"  Defendants obtain at least partial relief 50% of the time and complete relief 25% of the time.  But conversion of the study's data to baseball nomenclature is a useful way to understand the meaning of success.

Setting aside the mathematics of calculating the differences between singles, triples, and strike outs, a baseball player with a .500 batting average is unquestionably destined for the Hall of Fame.  Even a player who carries a .250 average—especially if s/he is also a "golden glove"—can be a Most Valuable Player.   If success rates in Daubert practice are assayed like baseball batting averages, we will feel better about this particular corner of the litigation field.

And plaintiffs' success rates are not significantly lower than defendants'.  The average rate of a civil plaintiff obtaining some relief due to a Daubert challenge is 40%, while home runs—obtaining all the relief requested—averages 18%.  Interestingly, plaintiffs' 18% "home run" rate is probably close to what trial lawyers on both sides perceive to be the general success rate of Daubert motions.  But the Searle report's data support a more optimistic view.

The second major success factor in Daubert motions is the type of the lawsuit. Not all causes of action are equal, and the type of lawsuit in which the witness is testifying can double—or halve—the success rate.  When defendants challenge, the likelihood of at least some relief is over 50% in disputes involving contracts, torts, civil rights, and RICO.  According to the Searle data, a defendant's best chance of at least partial success is an antitrust case.  But only 35 antitrust cases were analyzed, so the assurance provided by a large data set is not really present.

Plaintiffs' Daubert motions do not succeed as much as 50% of the time in any kind of lawsuit.  The best chances for a partial grant of relief occur in contract and real property dispute and, to a lesser degree, in claims involving torts and labor disputes.  Notably, plaintiffs obtain a full grant of relief in only 16% of tort cases.

Today, the timing of Daubert challenges is most often fixed by the court's scheduling order and usually must be made no later than the deadline fixed for summary judgment motions.  Going back fifteen or twenty years, however, when many federal courts were still experimenting with the scheduling requirements we now taken for granted, Daubert motions might be made before, with, or after motions for summary judgment.

Unchanged is the length of time between filing and ruling.  Daubert challenges easily linger for 80 to 90 days—in tort cases, for example—but the average duration can be as long as 100 to 150 days in labor, real property, and securities disputes.  The Searle study identified 41 environmental cases where the "average duration" of a Daubert motion was a jaw-dropping 203 days.  These intervals are useful to know when setting client expectations.

Turning to PwC's latest study of Daubert motions, the authors' case selection trigger was not a citation to Daubert but was instead citation to Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999):  "Our study is limited to written opinions citing Kumho Tire."  PwC, fn 2.  Kumho, of course, extended the rationale developed in 1993 in Daubert to assess the admissibility of epidemiological opinions to non-scientific testimony of the kind provided by engineers—and also by accountants, economists, and appraisers.

In some ways, PwC's focus on financial witnesses furnishes a clearer picture of Daubert success rates.

Financial witnesses typically are not called upon to provide a legal element crucial to establishing a cognizable cause of action.  Although "damage" caused by alleged misconduct is a required ingredient for relief, opinion testimony is usually not the only way to establish damages.  Numbers frequently can be put on the blackboard without the necessity of an "expert." Accordingly, the motivations for challenging financial opinion testimony are less likely to be driven by who has the burden of proof and more likely a function of whether of the witness used reliable methods.

PwC's report confirms this view.  Year in and year out, lack of reliability is the most common reason for the excluding opinion testimony on financial subjects.  Analyzing 2,014 cases (all citing Kumho) between 2000 and 2015, PwC identified 896 cases in which the financial testimony was partially or completely excluded—an average exclusion rate of 44%.

Moreover, an exclusion rate of financial witnesses in the 40th percentile is common across all types of cases.  Only a few percentage points separate securities litigation (47%) from product liability (48%) or intellectual property (49%) from bankruptcy (47%).

In one respect, however, PwC's analysis of financial witnesses reflects the same distribution of challenges—between plaintiffs versus defendants—seen in Searle's analysis of every other kind of expert.  About twice as many Daubert challenges are made against plaintiffs' witnesses as defendants' witnesses.  In 2015, 63% of the Daubert challenges were against witnesses for the plaintiffs and 37% were against witnesses for the defendants.

Notably, PwC found that, after reliability, "relevance" was the second most common reason for exclusion of financial testimony.  FRE 702(a) requires that opinion testimony fit the case at hand, i.e., "help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."  PwC reported that, when a financial expert is excluded for lack of relevance, the proposed testimony is either not helpful to the trier of fact or beyond the scope of the witness's competence.

An aspect of Daubert practice covered by PwC's analysis but not found in the Searle study is the rate of disposition on appeal.  PwC began tracking appellate decisions only five years ago.  Before 2011, PwC restricted its analysis to trial court rulings.

Between 2011 and 2015, a majority of the 64 appeals of trial court rulings on financial witnesses were affirmed.  If the trial court allowed the testimony, the affirmance rate was 89%.  If the testimony was partially excluded, the affirmance rate was 80%.  And if the testimony was totally excluded, the affirmance rate was still a respectable 58%.   Again, these percentages are useful to have when setting client expectations about the proverbial "chances on appeal."  

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
John L. Tate
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions