Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. West Corp.

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

May 1, 2014

REX BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
WEST CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LYLE E. STROM, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the motion of the defendant West Corporation ("West") to exclude the testimony of Dr. Brian H. Kleiner (Filing No. 196). Plaintiff Rex Brown intends to use Dr. Kleiner's expert testimony regarding human resource practices to support Brown's claims of disparate treatment by showing that West's actions toward Brown did not conform to standard human resource practices or West's own policies. Defendant West Corporation seeks the exclusion of the testimony and report on the basis that Dr. Kleiner's testimony is irrelevant and unreliable and on the basis that expert testimony is not necessary to the jury's understanding of these issues. The Court finds that the motion should be granted.

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 places limitations on the admission of expert testimony:

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:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Trial courts "must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). "This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue." Id. at 592-93. Specifically, the Court should consider where applicable the factors set forth in Daubert: whether the experts method (1) has been or can be tested, (2) "has been subjected to peer review, " (3) "has a known or potential rate of error, " and 4) have gained general acceptance in the relevant community. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149 (1999). However, the factors should be applied in a flexible manner that takes into consideration the circumstances of the case. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-95.

The Court must also consider other applicable rules, including Federal Rule of Evidence 403 which balances the probative value of certain evidence against its potential to prejudice the trier of fact. Id.

B. Analysis

The central premise of the disputed testimony is Kleiner's opinion that:

The defendant's treatment of Mr. Brown prior to his resignation was inconsistent with appropriate human resource management practice generally and its own policy to provide equal employment ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.