{"id":15199,"date":"2026-01-28T13:28:06","date_gmt":"2026-01-28T18:28:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/?page_id=15199"},"modified":"2026-03-02T10:14:41","modified_gmt":"2026-03-02T15:14:41","slug":"recent-applications-of-fre-702","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/?page_id=15199","title":{"rendered":"Recent Applications of FRE 702"},"content":{"rendered":"<section class=\"l-section wpb_row height_custom color_primary with_img parallax_fixed\"><div class=\"l-section-img\" role=\"img\" aria-label=\"Image\" data-img-width=\"1521\" data-img-height=\"761\" style=\"background-image: url(https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/header.webp);\"><\/div><div class=\"l-section-overlay\" style=\"background:rgba(1,18,64,0.80)\"><\/div><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-separator size_medium\"><\/div><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_856474dc\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h1 style=\"text-align: center;\">Recent Applications of FRE 702<\/h1>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_small\"><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_medium\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row height_auto color_alternate type_sticky\"><div class=\"l-section-overlay\" style=\"background:#b78c18\"><\/div><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><nav class=\"w-menu us_custom_767d48c7 has_text_color layout_hor style_blocks us_menu_1\" style=\"--main-ver-indent:0.8em;--main-hor-indent:0.8em;--main-color:var(--color-header-middle-bg);--main-hover-color:rgba(6,15,43,0.90);--main-active-color:#ffffff;\"><ul id=\"menu-about-menu\" class=\"menu\"><li id=\"menu-item-8151\" class=\"menu-item menu-item-type-custom menu-item-object-custom menu-item-8151\"><a href=\"#intro\">Details<\/a><\/li><li id=\"menu-item-15228\" class=\"menu-item menu-item-type-custom menu-item-object-custom menu-item-15228\"><a href=\"#amicus\">LCJ Amicus Activity<\/a><\/li><li id=\"menu-item-15229\" class=\"menu-item menu-item-type-custom menu-item-object-custom menu-item-15229\"><a href=\"#changes\">Changes in Application<\/a><\/li><li id=\"menu-item-15230\" class=\"menu-item menu-item-type-custom menu-item-object-custom menu-item-15230\"><a href=\"#decisions\">Select Decisions<\/a><\/li><li id=\"menu-item-15231\" class=\"menu-item menu-item-type-custom menu-item-object-custom menu-item-15231\"><a href=\"#textual\">Textual Changes<\/a><\/li><li id=\"menu-item-8152\" class=\"menu-item menu-item-type-custom menu-item-object-custom menu-item-8152\"><a href=\"#history\">Procedural History<\/a><\/li><\/ul><style>@media ( max-width:600px ){.us_menu_1 .menu{display:block!important}.us_menu_1 .menu>li:not(:last-child){margin:0 0 var(--main-gap,)!important}}<\/style><\/nav><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row height_custom width_custom color_alternate\" style=\"--site-content-width:1010px;\" id=\"intro\"><div class=\"l-section-overlay\" style=\"background:#f5f5f5\"><\/div><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"g-cols wpb_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:3rem;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><h2 class=\"w-text us_custom_4b9358a2 has_text_color\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">Amendment Details<\/span><\/span><\/h2><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_e2aee182\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p style=\"text-align: center;\">An amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 took effect on December 1, 2023.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">The amendment clarifies the duty of district courts to determine admissibility according to the rule\u2019s standards before allowing an expert witness to testify. Although styled as a clarification, the amendment is meant to change practice.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">The number of federal court decisions implementing FRE 702 is accelerating. \u201cNewly published decisions implementing amended FRE 702 are now brought to our attention weekly,\u201d according to LCJ Expert Evidence Committee Co-Chair Lee Mickus, of Evans Fears Schuttert McNulty Mickus. \u201cAn active amicus program to support appropriate application of amended Rule 702 &#8212; at the district and appellate court level \u2013 is anticipated in 2025.\u201d\u00a0 Examples of recent amicus briefs can be found at the Don\u2019t Say Daubert <a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/resources\/\">resources<\/a> page.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row height_custom width_custom color_alternate\" style=\"--site-content-width:1010px;\" id=\"amicus\"><div class=\"l-section-overlay\" style=\"background:#fff\"><\/div><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"g-cols wpb_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:3rem;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><h2 class=\"w-text us_custom_4b9358a2 has_text_color\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">Amicus Filings Are Supporting Correct Interpretations of the Amended Rule<\/span><\/span><\/h2><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_e2aee182\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Clear admissibility standards and evidentiary gatekeeping by the court are key to the administration of justice, consistent with the law. LCJ is actively working to ensure courts across the country properly interpret Amended FRE 702. This map highlights amicus brief support for correct interpretations of the amended rule:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/9-1-2\/\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-15311 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/9-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"2048\" height=\"1433\" srcset=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/9-1.png 2048w, https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/9-1-300x210.png 300w, https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/9-1-1024x717.png 1024w, https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/9-1-1536x1075.png 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row height_custom width_custom color_alternate\" style=\"--site-content-width:1010px;\"><div class=\"l-section-overlay\" style=\"background:#f5f5f5\"><\/div><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:2.2rem;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"g-cols wpb_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:3rem;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><h2 class=\"w-text us_custom_c1e683a7 has_text_color\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">LCJ Amicus Briefs Submitted by Circuit<\/span><\/span><\/h2><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_4edece6e height_custom width_custom color_alternate\" style=\"--site-content-width:1010px;\"><div class=\"l-section-overlay\" style=\"background:#f5f5f5\"><\/div><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_2 laptops-cols_2 tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default equal_height\" style=\"--columns-gap:2.2rem;--laptops-columns-gap:2.2rem;--tablets-columns-gap:2.2rem;--mobiles-columns-gap:0rem;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"g-cols wpb_row us_custom_893958d7 via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:3rem;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-tabs style_default switch_click accordion has_scrolling\" style=\"--sections-title-size:inherit\"><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_chevron cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"a925\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-a925\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">2nd Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-a925\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/LCJ-Amicus-Brief-Rutledge-v.-Walgreens.pdf\">Rutledge v. Walgreen Co.<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/LCJ-Amicus-Brief-in-Colwell-v.-Sig-Sauer-Inc.-Before-the-2nd-Circuit-May-16-2025.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Colwell v. Sig Sauer<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"l06a\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-l06a\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">4th Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-l06a\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/LCJ-Amicus-Brief-Sommerville-v.-Union-Carbide.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Sommerville v. Union Carbide<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/LCJ-amicus-brief-Williams-v.-Sig-Sauer-4th-Circuit-February-26-2026.pdf\">Williams v. Sig Sauer<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"u368\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-u368\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">5th Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-u368\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/LCJ-Amicus-Brief-Rule-702-5th-Cir-HarrisvFedEx.pdf\">Harris v. FedEx Corp.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"u5c3\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-u5c3\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">6th Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-u5c3\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/LCJ-Amicus-Brief-in-Martin-v.-Polaris-April-7-2025-2.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Martin v. Polaris<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"u7c5\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-u7c5\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">7th Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_8535c5f4\" id=\"content-u7c5\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/LCJ-Amicus-Brief-Zurbriggen-v.-Twin-Hill.pdf\">Zurbriggen v. Twin Hill Acquisition<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_12aac396\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"g-cols wpb_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:3rem;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_c5f13b0d\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-tabs style_default switch_click accordion has_scrolling\" style=\"--sections-title-size:inherit\"><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_chevron cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"q19b\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-q19b\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">8th Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_5cd26a65\" id=\"content-q19b\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/LCJ-Sprafka-Amicus.pdf\">Sprafka v. DePuy<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Lawyers-for-Civil-Justice-Amicus-Brief-in-Richter-v.-Syngenta.pdf\">Richter v. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"n45b\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-n45b\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">9th Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-n45b\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/LCJ-Amicus-Brief-NFL-Sunday-Tickets.pdf\">NFL Sunday Ticket Litigation<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/LCJ-Amicus-Brief-Jensen-v.-Camco-Manufacturing.pdf\">Jensen v. Camco Mfg.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"r668\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-r668\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">10th Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-r668\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/LCJ-Amicus-Brief-Fischer-v-BMW.pdf\">Fischer v. BMW<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"e7f7\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-e7f7\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">11th Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-e7f7\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/LCJ-Amicus-Brief-in-Lang-v.-Sig-Sauer-Before-the-11th-Circuit-May-22-2025.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Lang v. Sig Sauer<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"n9fa\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-n9fa\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Federal Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-n9fa\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/EcoFactor-v.-Google-LCJ-Amicus-Brief-filed.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">EcoFactor v. Google<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_13e33cee height_custom\" id=\"changes\"><div class=\"l-section-overlay\" style=\"background:var(--color-header-middle-bg)\"><\/div><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4vw;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_33b9ee00\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><h2 class=\"w-text us_custom_ed08e01f has_text_color\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">Changes in Application of Evidentiary Standards Before and After 2023 FRE Amendment<\/span><\/span><\/h2><div class=\"w-tabs layout_hor style_default switch_click has_scrolling\" style=\"--sections-title-size:1em\" data-accordion-at-width=\"500\"><div class=\"w-tabs-list items_6 align_none\"><div class=\"w-tabs-list-h\"><button class=\"w-tabs-item active\" aria-controls=\"content-h402\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><span class=\"w-tabs-item-title\">Fifth Circuit<\/span><\/button><button class=\"w-tabs-item\" aria-controls=\"content-md8c\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><span class=\"w-tabs-item-title\">Sixth Circuit<\/span><\/button><button class=\"w-tabs-item\" aria-controls=\"content-u9ce\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><span class=\"w-tabs-item-title\">Eighth Circuit<\/span><\/button><button class=\"w-tabs-item\" aria-controls=\"content-s266\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><span class=\"w-tabs-item-title\">Ninth Circuit<\/span><\/button><button class=\"w-tabs-item\" aria-controls=\"content-ga09\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><span class=\"w-tabs-item-title\">Tenth Circuit<\/span><\/button><button class=\"w-tabs-item\" aria-controls=\"content-g1f8\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><span class=\"w-tabs-item-title\">Federal Circuit<\/span><\/button><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_chevron cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section active\" id=\"h402\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header active\" aria-controls=\"content-h402\" aria-expanded=\"true\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Fifth Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-h402\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"w-hwrapper valign_top stack_on_mobiles align_none\" style=\"--hwrapper-gap:1.2rem\"><div class=\"w-vwrapper align_none valign_top us_custom_d5490510\" style=\"--vwrapper-gap:0.1rem\"><div class=\"w-message us_custom_d2cfbb12 has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>Admissibility standards before FRE 702 amendment<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-message us_custom_59a20ffd has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>\u201cQuestions relating to the bases and sources of an expert\u2019s opinions affecting the weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility\u201d and so should be left for the jury\u2019s consideration.\u201d1<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-vwrapper align_none valign_top us_custom_d5490510\" style=\"--vwrapper-gap:0.1rem\"><div class=\"w-message us_custom_726778bd has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>Admissibility standards after FRE 702 amendment<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-message us_custom_1a6aa9c6 has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>\u201cThere is no question that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony,\u201d and under that rule, \u201cexpert testimony may not be admitted unless the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the proffered testimony meets the admissibility requirements set forth in the rule.\u201d The trial court must ensure that the proffered opinions \u201creflect a reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case.\u201d2<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"md8c\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-md8c\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Sixth Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-md8c\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"w-hwrapper valign_top stack_on_mobiles align_none\" style=\"--hwrapper-gap:1.2rem\"><div class=\"w-vwrapper align_none valign_top us_custom_d5490510\" style=\"--vwrapper-gap:0.1rem\"><div class=\"w-message us_custom_d2cfbb12 has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>Admissibility standards before FRE 702 amendment<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-message us_custom_59a20ffd has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>\u201c[M]ere weaknesses in the factual basis of an expert witness\u2019 opinion &#8230; bear on the weight of the evidence rather than on its admissibility.\u201d In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 530 (6th Cir. 2008).<br \/>\n\u201c[I]t is up to opposing counsel to inquire into the expert\u2019s factual basis.\u201d3 <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-vwrapper align_none valign_top us_custom_d5490510\" style=\"--vwrapper-gap:0.1rem\"><div class=\"w-message us_custom_726778bd has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>Admissibility standards after FRE 702 amendment<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-message us_custom_1a6aa9c6 has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>\u201cDistrict courts \u201cha[ve] an independent duty to ensure that all experts\u201d meet the Rule 702 admissibility prerequisites. The 2023 amendment to Rule 702 was \u201cdrafted to correct some court decisions incorrectly holding \u2018that the critical questions of the suf\ufb01ciency of an expert\u2019s basis, and the application of the expert\u2019s methodology, are questions of weight and not admissibility.\u2019\u201d4<\/p>\n<p>Rule 702 \u201conly allows an expert to testify when\u201d the proponent establishes all of the enumerated elements.5 <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"u9ce\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-u9ce\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Eighth Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-u9ce\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"w-hwrapper valign_top stack_on_mobiles align_none\" style=\"--hwrapper-gap:1.2rem\"><div class=\"w-vwrapper align_none valign_top us_custom_d5490510\" style=\"--vwrapper-gap:0.1rem\"><div class=\"w-message us_custom_d2cfbb12 has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>Admissibility standards before FRE 702 amendment<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-message us_custom_59a20ffd has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>\u201cThe Eighth Circuit \u201cstated numerous times that, \u2018[a]s a general rule, the factual basis of an expert opinion goes to the credibility of the testimony, not the admissibility.\u2019\u201d Eighth Circuit cases \u201ccall[ed] for the liberal admission of expert testimony.\u201d6<br \/>\n\u201cOnly if an expert\u2019s opinion is so fundamentally unsupported<br \/>\nthat it can offer no assistance to the jury must such testimony be excluded.\u201d \u201cDoubts regarding whether an expert\u2019s testimony will be useful should generally be resolved in favor of admissibility.\u201d7 <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-vwrapper align_none valign_top us_custom_d5490510\" style=\"--vwrapper-gap:0.1rem\"><div class=\"w-message us_custom_726778bd has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>Admissibility standards after FRE 702 amendment<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-message us_custom_1a6aa9c6 has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>\u201cThe 2023 amendment to Rule 702 was deemed \u201cnecessary because many courts had incorrectly held \u2018that the critical questions of the suf\ufb01ciency of an expert\u2019s basis, and the application of the expert\u2019s methodology, are questions of weight and not admissibility.\u2019\u201d Proffered opinions \u201clack reliability\u201d and are properly excluded where they lack an adequate basis.\u201d8 <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"s266\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-s266\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Ninth Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-s266\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"w-hwrapper valign_top stack_on_mobiles align_none\" style=\"--hwrapper-gap:1.2rem\"><div class=\"w-vwrapper align_none valign_top us_custom_d5490510\" style=\"--vwrapper-gap:0.1rem\"><div class=\"w-message us_custom_d2cfbb12 has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>Admissibility standards before FRE 702 amendment<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-message us_custom_59a20ffd has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>\u201cWhere experts\u2019 opinions \u201care not the \u2018junk science\u2019 Rule 702 was meant to exclude, . . . the interests of justice favor leaving dif\ufb01cult issues in the hands of the jury and relying on the safeguards of the adversary system &#8230; to attack \u2018shaky but admissible\u2019 evidence.\u201d Rule 702 \u201cshould be applied with a \u2018liberal thrust\u2019 favoring admission.\u201d9<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-vwrapper align_none valign_top us_custom_d5490510\" style=\"--vwrapper-gap:0.1rem\"><div class=\"w-message us_custom_726778bd has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>Admissibility standards after FRE 702 amendment<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-message us_custom_1a6aa9c6 has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>\u201cRule 702 \u201cexpressly require[s] a proponent of expert testimony to \u2018demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the four admissibility requirements are satis\ufb01ed.\u201d When applying the standard, \u201cchallenges to an expert\u2019s opinion go to the weight of the evidence only if a court \ufb01rst \ufb01nds it more likely than not that an expert has a suf\ufb01cient basis to support an opinion.\u201d If the proponent \u201cfail[s] to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that [the expert\u2019s] conclusion was based on suf\ufb01cient facts or data,\u201d the opinions are properly excluded under Rule 702(b). The district court \u201ccannot abdicate its role as gatekeeper\u201d nor \u201cdelegat[e] that role to the jury.\u201d Prior holdings that Rule 702 should be applied \u201cwith a liberal thrust\u201d should \u201cnot be understood to suggest a presumption of admission\u201d because \u201c[t]here is no such presumption, as a proponent of expert testimony must always establish the admissibility requirements of Rule 702 by a preponderance of the evidence.\u201d10<\/p>\n<p>\u201cRule 702 contemplates that district courts may exclude opinion testimony where the expert\u2019s \u201capplication of those methods\u201d is unreliable.\u201d11 <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"ga09\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-ga09\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Tenth Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-ga09\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"w-hwrapper valign_top stack_on_mobiles align_none\" style=\"--hwrapper-gap:1.2rem\"><div class=\"w-vwrapper align_none valign_top us_custom_d5490510\" style=\"--vwrapper-gap:0.1rem\"><div class=\"w-message us_custom_d2cfbb12 has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>Admissibility standards before FRE 702 amendment<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-message us_custom_0d7b031d has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>\u201c[D]oubts concerning the suf\ufb01ciency of the factual basis to support [the expert\u2019s] opinion go to its weight, and not to its admissibility.\u201d12 <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-vwrapper align_none valign_top us_custom_d5490510\" style=\"--vwrapper-gap:0.1rem\"><div class=\"w-message us_custom_726778bd has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>Admissibility standards after FRE 702 amendment<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-message us_custom_6aa042b4 has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>\u201cExperts that lack \u201c\u2018suf\ufb01cient facts or data\u2019 on which to base their opinions\u201d are properly excluded pursuant to Rule 702(b).\u201d13 <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"g1f8\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-g1f8\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-title\">Federal Circuit<\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-g1f8\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"w-hwrapper valign_top stack_on_mobiles align_none\" style=\"--hwrapper-gap:1.2rem\"><div class=\"w-vwrapper align_none valign_top us_custom_d5490510\" style=\"--vwrapper-gap:0.1rem\"><div class=\"w-message us_custom_d2cfbb12 has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>Admissibility standards before FRE 702 amendment<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-message us_custom_59a20ffd has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>\u201c[T]he soundness of the factual underpinnings of the expert\u2019s analysis and the correctness of the expert\u2019s conclusions based on that analysis are factual matters to be determined by the trier of fact.\u201d14 <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-vwrapper align_none valign_top us_custom_d5490510\" style=\"--vwrapper-gap:0.1rem\"><div class=\"w-message us_custom_726778bd has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>Admissibility standards after FRE 702 amendment<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-message us_custom_1a6aa9c6 has_text_color color_blue\"><div class=\"w-message-body\"><p>\u201c[T]he gatekeeping function of the court\u201d requires it \u201cto ensure that there are suf\ufb01cient facts or data for [the expert\u2019s] testimony.\u201d When that factual basis is found inadequate, the opinions are<br \/>\n\u201cunreliable and therefore inadmissible under Rule 702.\u201d Rule 702 was amended in 2023 because \u201cmany courts have held that the critical questions of the suf\ufb01ciency of an expert\u2019s basis, and the application of the expert\u2019s methodology, are questions of weight and not admissibility. These rulings are an incorrect application of Rules 702 and 104(a).\u201d15 <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"g-cols wpb_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:3rem;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_67966cb0 with_collapsible_content\" data-content-height=\"50px\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Endnotes<br \/>\n1. Smith v. Starr Indem. &amp; Liab. Co., 807 F. App\u2019x 299, 302 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Viterbo v. Dow Chem. Co., 826 F.2d 420, 422 (5th Cir. 1987)); Puga v. RCX Sols., Inc., 922 F.3d 285, 294 (5th Cir. 2019).<br \/>\n2. Nairne v. Landry, F.4th , No. 24-30115, 2025 WL 2355524, at *16 &amp; n.20 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025); Harris v. Fedex Corp. Svcs., Inc., 92 F.4th 286, 303 (5th Cir. Feb. 1, 2024).<br \/>\n3. United States v. L.E. Cooke Co., 991 F.2d 336, 342 (6th Cir. 1993).<br \/>\n4. In re Onglyza (Saxagliptin) and Kombiglyze (Saxagliptin and Metformin) Prods. Liab. Litig., 93 F.4th 339, 347, 348 n.7 (6th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee\u2019s note to 2023 amendment). 5 Baker v. Blackhawk Mining, LLC, 141 F.4th 760, 766 (6th Cir. 2025).<br \/>\n6 In re Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Prod. Liab. Litig., 9 F.4th 768, 778 (8th Cir. 2021) (citing United States v. Coutentos, 651 F.3d 809, 820 (8th Cir. 2011)).<br \/>\n7 United States v. Finch, 630 F.3d 1057, 1062 (8th Cir. 2011).<br \/>\n8 Sprafka v. Medical Device Bus. Svcs., 139 F.4th 656, 660 &amp; n.3 (8th Cir. June 4, 2025) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee\u2019s note to 2023 amendment).<br \/>\n9 Wendell v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 858 F.3d 1227, 1232, 1237 (9th Cir. 2017).<br \/>\n10 Engilis v. Monsanto Co., ___ F.4th ___, 2025 WL 2315898, at *5, *6, *10 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2025).<br \/>\n11 Bulone v. Monsanto Co., No. 24-4241, 2025 WL 2730843, at *2 (Sept. 25, 2025) (emphasis original).<br \/>\n12 Werth v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 950 F.2d 643, 654 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1519 (10th Cir. 1995) (\u201cweaknesses in the data upon which [the] expert relied go to the weight\u201d).<br \/>\n13 Herman v. Sig Sauer Inc., No. 23-6136, 2025 WL 1672350, at *5, *6 (10th Cir. June 13, 2025).<br \/>\n14 Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014), overruled on other grounds by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir. 2000).<br \/>\n15 EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, 137 F.4th 1333, 1339, 1343, (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025) (en banc) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee\u2019s note to 2023 amendment).<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"toggle-links align_none\"><button class=\"collapsible-content-more\">Show More<\/button><button class=\"collapsible-content-less\">Show Less<\/button><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_a92bf69e\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/DSD-11.20.25-702-Before-After-v1.pdf\">Click here<\/a> to download a PDF fact sheet version of the side-by-side comparison above.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_645bd049 height_custom\" id=\"decisions\"><div class=\"l-section-overlay\" style=\"background:var(--color-header-middle-bg)\"><\/div><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4vw;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_33b9ee00\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-separator us_custom_0d3bc19e size_small with_line width_50 thick_1 style_solid color_primary align_center\"><div class=\"w-separator-h\"><\/div><\/div><h2 class=\"w-text us_custom_7fc52560\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">Select Decisions in Federal and State Courts<\/span><\/span><\/h2><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_a8de2708 height_custom\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1-3 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_1 mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4vw;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_187200f4\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h3>Second Circuit<\/h3>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-tabs us_custom_8d45c27c style_default switch_click accordion remove_indents\" style=\"--sections-title-size:18px\"><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_plus cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"bdff\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-bdff\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 (Southern District of New York)<\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-bdff\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>In In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York observed that the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules \u201cproposed the changes [reflected in the 2023 amendment] in response to court decisions that admitted expert testimony too liberally,\u201d and the enactment of the amendment \u201creflect[s] an intent to empower courts to take seriously their roles as gatekeepers of expert evidence.\u201d The Court excluded opinions from an expert who purported to apply his experience but the conclusions he reached did not have factual support and failed \u201cto account for . . . reasonable alternative explanations,\u201d leaving an unacceptable analytical gap between his basis and his opinions.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"d017\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-d017\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>Colwell v. Sig Sauer, Inc. (Northern District of New York) <\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-d017\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"s20a\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-s20a\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>In re Acetaminophen \u2013 ASD-ADHD Products Liability Litigation (Southern District of New York)<\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-s20a\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>In<em> In re Acetaminophen \u2013 ASD-ADHD Products Liability Litigation<\/em>, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York demonstrated effective judicial gatekeeping as outlined under the amended Rule 702 by repeatedly excluding the plaintiff\u2019s general causation experts after ruling the experts failed to reliably apply their methodologies.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_a8de2708 height_custom\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1-3 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_1 mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4vw;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_187200f4\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h3>Third Circuit<\/h3>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-tabs us_custom_8d45c27c style_default switch_click accordion remove_indents\" style=\"--sections-title-size:18px\"><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_plus cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"kbe4\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-kbe4\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>Cohen vs. Cohen<\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-kbe4\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>In In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York observed that the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules \u201cproposed the changes [reflected in the 2023 amendment] in response to court decisions that admitted expert testimony too liberally,\u201d and the enactment of the amendment \u201creflect[s] an intent to empower courts to take seriously their roles as gatekeepers of expert evidence.\u201d The Court excluded opinions from an expert who purported to apply his experience but the conclusions he reached did not have factual support and failed \u201cto account for . . . reasonable alternative explanations,\u201d leaving an unacceptable analytical gap between his basis and his opinions.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_a8de2708 height_custom\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1-3 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_1 mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4vw;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_187200f4\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h3>Fourth Circuit<\/h3>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-tabs us_custom_8d45c27c style_default switch_click accordion remove_indents\" style=\"--sections-title-size:18px\"><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_plus cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"w185\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-w185\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>Sardis v. Overhead Door Corp.<\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-w185\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The Fourth Circuit in <em>Sardis v. Overhead Door Corp.<\/em> recognized that the amendment seeks to correct the misguided practices that some courts follow.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"v376\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-v376\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>Sardis (Middle District of North Carolina)<\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-v376\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>In two decisions, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina cited to the\u00a0Sardis\u00a0decision\u2019s recognition that the amendment requires courts to consider if an expert\u2019s opinions fulfill all of the Rule 702 criteria using the preponderance of proof standard.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"s580\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-s580\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>Bishop v. Triumph Motorcycles (Northern District of West Virginia)<\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-s580\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>In two decisions, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina cited to the\u00a0Sardis\u00a0decision\u2019s recognition that the amendment requires courts to consider if an expert\u2019s opinions fulfill all of the Rule 702 criteria using the preponderance of proof standard.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_a8de2708 height_custom\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1-3 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_1 mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4vw;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_187200f4\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h3>Sixth Circuit<\/h3>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-tabs us_custom_8d45c27c style_default switch_click accordion remove_indents\" style=\"--sections-title-size:18px\"><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_plus cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"d1be\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-d1be\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>In re Anderson (Western District of Tennessee)<\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-d1be\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee in\u00a0<em>In re Anderson<\/em>\u00a0acknowledged that the Rule 702 amendment intends to guide courts toward a consistent gatekeeping practice that is not always followed today.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"b557\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-b557\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>Kopp Development, Inc. v. Metrasens, Inc. (Northern District of Ohio) <\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-b557\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The 2023 amendment confirms that the expert\u2019s proponent bears the burden of establishing admissibility, and that the expert\u2019s factual foundation must be shown sufficient in order for the opinion testimony to be admitted.\u00a0 The proffered expert in\u00a0<em>Kopp Development, Inc. v. Metrasens, Inc<\/em>., however, unreliably\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Kopp-Development-Inc-v-Metrasens-Inc.docx\">based<\/a>\u00a0his opinion exclusively on projected data received from the plaintiff without performing any evaluation of those projections.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"c7dc\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-c7dc\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>Alter Domus, LLC v. Winget (Eastern District of Michigan) <\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content\" id=\"content-c7dc\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The Court\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Alter-Domus-LLC-v-Winget.docx\">recognized<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0<em>Alter Domus, LLC v. Winget\u00a0<\/em>that the 2023 amendment was adopted because some courts had \u201csidestepped\u201d their obligation to decide \u201cwhether the admissibility criteria have been satisfied.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_a8de2708 height_custom\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1-3 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_1 mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4vw;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_187200f4\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h3>Seventh Circuit<\/h3>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-tabs us_custom_8d45c27c style_default switch_click accordion remove_indents\" style=\"--sections-title-size:18px\"><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_plus cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"a275\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-a275\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>Huss v. Sharkninja Operating LLC (Southern District of Indiana) <\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-a275\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>In\u00a0<em>Huss v. Sharkninja Operating LLC<\/em>, the 2023 amendment\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/VIRGINIA-IRIS-HUSS-Plaintiff-v-SHARKNINJA-OPERATING-LLC-Defendant.docx\">mandates<\/a>\u00a0that the proponent show by a preponderance that the Rule 702 elements have been established and also \u201crequir[es] the Court to determine whether an expert\u2019s methodology is reliable rather than leaving that determination to the jury.\u201d The Court excluded the expert because the plaintiff \u201chas not sustained her burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that [the expert\u2019s] methodology is reliable.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_a8de2708 height_custom\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1-3 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_1 mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4vw;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_187200f4\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h3>Eighth Circuit<\/h3>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-tabs us_custom_8d45c27c style_default switch_click accordion remove_indents\" style=\"--sections-title-size:18px\"><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_plus cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"r83b\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-r83b\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>Justice v. Beltway (USA), Inc. (Eastern District of Missouri) <\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-r83b\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The 2023 amendment requires the proponent to establish that an expert\u2019s opinions are admissible by a preponderance of the evidence, and clarifies that the sufficiency of an expert\u2019s factual basis and the reliability of the expert\u2019s application of her methodology to the facts of the case are admissibility issues for the court to decide.\u00a0 In\u00a0<em>Justice v. Beltway (USA), Inc<\/em>., the Court\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Justice-v-Bestway-USA-Inc.docx\">found<\/a>\u00a0inadmissible a key opinion because \u201cPlaintiffs have failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence\u201d that the opinion \u201cis based on sufficient facts and data and is the result of a reliable application of a methodology.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_a8de2708 height_custom\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1-3 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_1 mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4vw;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_187200f4\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h3>Ninth Circuit<\/h3>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-tabs us_custom_8d45c27c style_default switch_click accordion remove_indents\" style=\"--sections-title-size:18px\"><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_plus cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"ce6c\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-ce6c\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>In re: NFL \u201cSunday Ticket\u201d Antitrust Litigation (Central District of California)<\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-ce6c\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California <em>In re: NFL \u201cSunday Ticket\u201d Antitrust Litigation<\/em> recognized that the Rule 702 amendment forbids expert witnesses from making claims unsupported by the expert\u2019s methodology.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"c083\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-c083\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>Klein v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Northern District of California) <\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-c083\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>In\u00a0<em>Klein v. Meta Platforms, Inc<\/em>., the Court\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/MAXIMILIAN-KLEIN-et-al-Plaintiffs-v-META-PLATFORMS-INC-Defendant.docx\">described<\/a>\u00a0the 2023 amendments as \u201cintended to amplify\u201d the requirements of Rule 702. Courts should evaluate whether an expert identified sufficient facts or data to support every necessary link in her theory, and where that support is lacking may exclude the opinions due to the existence of an \u201canalytical gap.\u201d\u00a0 The Court excluded the opinions at issue because the expert lacked a factual basis for a step necessary to reach his conclusion.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"e327\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-e327\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>Jensen v. Camco Mfg., LLC (District of Arizona) <\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-e327\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Judge David Campbell, the former Chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Jensen-v-Camco-Manufacturing-LLC.docx\">observed<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0<em>Jensen v. Camco Mfg., LLC<\/em>\u00a0that the 2023 amendment clarified that Court\u2019s gatekeeping responsibility: \u201cif the proponent does not meet its Rule 702 burden, the expert testimony is not admissible.\u201d In considering engineering opinions based on a \u201cdifferential diagnosis\u201d methodology applied to determine if a product defect caused an accident, the Court observed that this type of analysis \u201cis reliable only if the expert first \u2018ruled in\u2019 only those potential causes that could have produced the injury in question.\u201d The Court ruled that the opinions must be excluded: \u201cHe speculates that the flame must have been due to some transient defect he did not detect, but speculation is not a reliable engineering method under Rule 702(c). And relying on a speculative cause because it \u2018cannot be ruled out\u2019 is not a reliable application of an engineering method to the facts of this case under Rule 702(d).\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_a8de2708 height_custom\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1-3 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_1 mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4vw;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_187200f4\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h3>Eleventh Circuit<\/h3>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-tabs us_custom_8d45c27c style_default switch_click accordion remove_indents\" style=\"--sections-title-size:18px\"><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_plus cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"uf5e\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-uf5e\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>In re Deepwater Horizon BELO Cases (Eleventh Circuit) <\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-uf5e\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p><em>In re Deepwater Horizon BELO<\/em> <em>Cases<\/em>,\u00a0the Court\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/In-re-Deepwater-Horizon-BELO-Cases.docx\">affirmed<\/a>\u00a0exclusion of the plaintiffs\u2019 general causation experts, finding that their failure to identify a threshold exposure dose that will produce harm rendered their methodology unreliable.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"w21b\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-w21b\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>Brashevitzky v. Reworld Holding Corp. (Southern District of Florida) <\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-w21b\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Under amended Rule 702, \u201cthe burden is on the party offering the expert testifying based on experience to explain how that experience led to the conclusion he reached, why that experience was a sufficient basis for the opinion, and just how that experience was reliably applied to the facts of the case.\u201d\u00a0 In\u00a0<em>Brashevitzky v. Reworld Holding Corp<\/em>., the Court\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Brashevitzky-v-Reworld-Holding-Corporation.docx\">excluded<\/a>\u00a0the expert\u2019s opinions where the witness did not explain how his experience allowed him to identify specific areas that were contaminated: \u201cthere is too great of an analytical gap between [the expert\u2019s] incomplete analysis in his declaration and his opinion to be admissible[.]\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"k4b3\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-k4b3\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>U.S. v. Jefferson (Western District of Washington) <\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-k4b3\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>Under\u00a0amended Rule 702 in\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/United-States-v-Jefferson.docx\"><em>U.S. v. Jefferson<\/em><\/a>, \u201cthe proponent of the expert testimony bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the testimony being proffered is admissible.\u201d It is the responsibility of the Court to determine that the expert\u2019s opinions are reliable, rather than deferring that determination to the jury, even when the opinions arise from the expert\u2019s experience. The Court excluded most of the experience-based expert\u2019s opinions because the defendant \u201chas not shown that it is more likely than not that the testimony of [the] defense expert meets the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_68674d9e height_custom\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1-3 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_1 mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4vw;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_187200f4\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h3>State Courts<\/h3>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-tabs us_custom_8d45c27c style_default switch_click accordion remove_indents\" style=\"--sections-title-size:18px\"><div class=\"w-tabs-sections titles-align_none icon_plus cpos_right\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section\" id=\"k17c\"><button class=\"w-tabs-section-header\" aria-controls=\"content-k17c\" aria-expanded=\"false\"><h3 class=\"w-tabs-section-title\"><i>IN RE ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) Litigation (Delaware Supreme Court)<\/i><\/h3><div class=\"w-tabs-section-control\"><\/div><\/button><div  class=\"w-tabs-section-content us_custom_f73f4019\" id=\"content-k17c\"><div class=\"w-tabs-section-content-h i-cf\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><p>In <em>IN RE ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) Litigation<\/em>, the Delaware Supreme Court applied Delaware Rule of Evidence 702, the state\u2019s analogue to FRE 702, consistent with the amended federal rule, reversing a lower court\u2019s decision that neglected its gatekeeping responsibility by allowing questions about the reliability of expert evidence to fall to the jury. The Court held, \u201cA trial judge must act as the gatekeeper of expert testimony and should not dismiss challenges to the sufficiency or reliability of an expert opinion by viewing the disputes as questions for the jury to weigh.\u201d LCJ submitted an amicus brief urging the Court to interpret DRE 702 consistent with the amended federal rule. Other lower courts in Delaware had cited incorrect standards which presumed the admissibility of expert testimony and allowed experts to testify without applying reliable scientific methodology to reach their conclusions.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row height_small\" id=\"textual\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-separator size_small\"><\/div><h2 class=\"w-text us_custom_eb849559\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">These are the textual changes the amendment made to the rule:<\/span><\/span><\/h2><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_916d5e53 height_custom\" id=\"testimony\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1-2 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4vw;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_33b9ee00\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><h3 class=\"w-text us_custom_1dd62902\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">Rule 702: Testimony by Expert Witness<\/span><\/span><\/h3><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><h4 class=\"w-text us_custom_e58194e6 has_text_color\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">This amendment clarifies:<\/span><\/span><\/h4><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_95ebd667 has_text_color\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><ul>\n<li>The court must decide admissibility employing Rule 702\u2019s standards;<\/li>\n<li>The proponent of expert testimony must establish its admissibility to the court by a preponderance of the evidence; and<\/li>\n<li>The court\u2019s gatekeeping responsibility is ongoing\u2014the decision to admit testimony does not allow the expert to offer an opinion that is not grounded in Rule 702\u2019s standards.<\/li>\n<li>This amendment is meant to change practice, starting today, because Rule 702, not <em>Daubert<\/em> or any other case law, sets the standards for admissibility.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row height_small\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container us_custom_0427999b has_bg_color\"><div class=\"vc_column-overlay\" style=\"background:rgba(6,15,43,0.85)\"><\/div><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><h3 class=\"w-text us_custom_cf12c02a has_text_color\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witness<\/span><\/span><\/h3><div class=\"wpb_text_column us_custom_6df4bc3a has_text_color\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><h6 style=\"font-weight: 600;\">A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the <span style=\"color: #d40000;\">proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:<\/span><\/h6>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_small\"><\/div><div class=\"g-cols wpb_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:4rem;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-iconbox us_custom_6df4bc3a has_text_color iconpos_left style_circle color_custom align_none no_title icontype_img\"><div class=\"w-iconbox-icon\" style=\"font-size:1.6rem;--icon-bg-color:#b78c18;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"222\" height=\"206\" src=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Untitled-1.png\" class=\"attachment-full size-full\" alt=\"\" \/><\/div><div class=\"w-iconbox-meta\"><div class=\"w-iconbox-text\"><h6 style=\"font-weight: 500;\">The expert\u2019s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;<\/h6>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_custom\" style=\"height:20px\"><\/div><div class=\"w-iconbox us_custom_6df4bc3a has_text_color iconpos_left style_circle color_custom align_none no_title icontype_img\"><div class=\"w-iconbox-icon\" style=\"font-size:1.6rem;--icon-bg-color:#b78c18;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"222\" height=\"206\" src=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Untitled-b.png\" class=\"attachment-full size-full\" alt=\"\" \/><\/div><div class=\"w-iconbox-meta\"><div class=\"w-iconbox-text\"><h6 style=\"font-weight: 500;\">The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;<\/h6>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_custom\" style=\"height:20px\"><\/div><div class=\"w-iconbox us_custom_6df4bc3a has_text_color iconpos_left style_circle color_custom align_none no_title icontype_img\"><div class=\"w-iconbox-icon\" style=\"font-size:1.6rem;--icon-bg-color:#b78c18;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"222\" height=\"206\" src=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Untitled-c.png\" class=\"attachment-full size-full\" alt=\"\" \/><\/div><div class=\"w-iconbox-meta\"><div class=\"w-iconbox-text\"><h6 style=\"font-weight: 500;\">The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and<\/h6>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"w-separator size_custom\" style=\"height:20px\"><\/div><div class=\"w-iconbox us_custom_6df4bc3a has_text_color iconpos_left style_circle color_custom align_none no_title icontype_img\"><div class=\"w-iconbox-icon\" style=\"font-size:1.6rem;--icon-bg-color:#b78c18;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"222\" height=\"206\" src=\"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Untitled-d.png\" class=\"attachment-full size-full\" alt=\"\" \/><\/div><div class=\"w-iconbox-meta\"><div class=\"w-iconbox-text\"><h6 style=\"font-weight: 500;\"><s>The expert has reliably applied<\/s> <span style=\"color: red;\">expert\u2019s opinion reflects a reliable application of the<\/span> principles and methods to the facts of the case.<\/h6>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"l-section wpb_row us_custom_b03640aa height_huge\"><div class=\"l-section-h i-cf\"><div class=\"g-cols vc_row via_grid cols_1 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\" id=\"history\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"w-separator size_small with_line width_50 thick_1 style_solid color_primary align_center\"><div class=\"w-separator-h\"><\/div><\/div><h3 class=\"w-text us_custom_e26bba62\"><span class=\"w-text-h\"><span class=\"w-text-value\">Procedural History<\/span><\/span><\/h3><div class=\"g-cols wpb_row via_grid cols_2 laptops-cols_inherit tablets-cols_inherit mobiles-cols_1 valign_top type_default stacking_default\" style=\"--columns-gap:3rem;\"><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><ul>\n<li>The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure voted unanimously to approve this amendment to Rule 702 in June 2022, and it was subsequently approved by the Judicial Conference in September of 2022.<\/li>\n<li>The amendment was then sent for review to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in turn sent it to Congress in April 2023.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column vc_column_container\"><div class=\"vc_column-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_text_column\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><ul>\n<li>The rule went into effect on December 1, 2023.<\/li>\n<li>Because state rules have the same shortcomings as the federal rule, states should also update their evidence rules to ensure that lawyers are not allowed to present unreliable expert testimony\u00a0 to juries.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Recent Applications of FRE 702 DetailsLCJ Amicus ActivityChanges in ApplicationSelect DecisionsTextual ChangesProcedural HistoryAmendment DetailsAn amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 took effect on December 1, 2023. The amendment clarifies the duty of district courts to determine admissibility according to the rule\u2019s standards before allowing an expert witness to testify. Although styled as a...","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-15199","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/15199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15199"}],"version-history":[{"count":44,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/15199\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15312,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/15199\/revisions\/15312"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}