{"id":8626,"date":"2023-02-27T02:10:44","date_gmt":"2023-02-27T02:10:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dsdtestsite.com\/?p=8626"},"modified":"2023-11-02T02:12:41","modified_gmt":"2023-11-02T02:12:41","slug":"dont-wait-the-rule-702-amendments-can-be-used-now","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/?p=8626","title":{"rendered":"Don\u2019t Wait \u2013 The Rule 702 Amendments Can Be Used Now"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>We\u2019ve chronicled the path of the 2023 amendments to Fed. R. Evid. 702\u00a0<a class=\"logclick ct_cont\" href=\"https:\/\/www.druganddevicelawblog.com\/2021\/05\/civil-rules-committee-proposes-to-toughen-rule-702.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">pretty<\/a>\u00a0<a class=\"logclick ct_cont\" href=\"https:\/\/www.druganddevicelawblog.com\/2021\/05\/civil-rules-committee-proposes-to-toughen-rule-702.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">much<\/a>\u00a0<a class=\"logclick ct_cont\" href=\"https:\/\/www.druganddevicelawblog.com\/2022\/06\/never-say-daubert-again-amendments-to-fed-r-evid-702-unanimously-approved.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">from<\/a>\u00a0the beginning. As we\u2019ve discussed, those amendments reiterate what had always been (at least since 2000) the Rule\u2019s requirements for analyzing the admissibility of expert witness testimony. But courts had been ignoring critical elements \u2013 such as the burden of proof \u2013 that had been in comments rather than the black letter of Rule 702 itself. So, as of December 2023, Rule 702 will provide that the\u00a0<strong><em>proponent<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0of expert testimony must meet all of the Rule\u2019s substantive standards for admissibility by\u00a0<strong><em>a preponderance of the evidence<\/em><\/strong>, and in particular that an adequate\u00a0<strong><em>basis<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0for such testimony is a prerequisite to admissibility.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lexology.com\/library\/detail.aspx?g=066299e9-47fb-4f89-aa4e-764b21a102d6\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Read More at Lexology<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lexology<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"source":[31],"class_list":["post-8626","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-in-the-news","source-lexology"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8626","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"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=8626"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8626\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8627,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8626\/revisions\/8627"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8626"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8626"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8626"},{"taxonomy":"source","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dontsaydaubert.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fsource&post=8626"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}