Study Guides for Daubert I & II

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. - I

What is the drug?

Why is it prescribed?

Is this a significant problem?

What is the alleged harm?

What is the procedural background?

Did the plaintiffs have experts?

What did they testify?

Why didn't the court think they met the burden of proof?

What rule was the court relying on?

What was wrong with the plaintiffs' experts analysis?

Why were courts suspicious of the plaintiffs' experts?

What is plaintiffs' argument on appeal in this case?

Does this include general acceptance?

What does 702 require?

Are there requirements beyond the validity of the evidence?

Why is the admission of expert testimony more restrictive than general witness testimony?

Discuss the Daubert factors:

Has it been tested?

Has it been published and reviewed?

Is this an absolute requirement?

What is the role of general acceptance?

How does Rule 703 modify 702?

What does 706 allow?

Why do attorneys hate this?

What about Rule 403?

What did Judge Weinstein say about this?

Can you think of examples?

Why does the court say are plaintiff's attorneys are hostile to a screening role for the courts?

How is the search for truth different in the court and the lab?

Rehnquist, Chief Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part):

What is Rehnquist's objection to the judicial screening?

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  - II

What significance does the court attach to research that was not done for the purposes of litigation?

What type of research did plaintiffs' experts offer?

What is Daubert testing?

Correctness or methodology?

Why?

Has the plaintiffs' expert's work been published?

Why does this matter?

What is the causation problem with plaintiffs' evidence?

How does this burden change based on the nature of the birth defect?

How does the court related relative risk to more probable than not causation?

Is this correct?

Why or why not?

Why are plaintiffs' experts unable to address the relative risk issue?