United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Smith Camp Chief United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on the parties' motions in
limine submitted pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire
Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). In
Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. 194, Union Pacific Railroad
Company (UP) seeks to exclude testimony of Defendant's
expert witness, Sharon Van Dyck. In Defendant's Motion,
ECF No. 197, Colony National Insurance Company (Colony) seeks
to exclude testimony of UP's expert witness, Joseph R.
Farris. For the reasons discussed below, the Motions will be
denied, without prejudice to the parties raising their
respective objections at the time of trial.
Rule of Evidence Rule 702 allows for the admission of expert
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
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.
light of Daubert and Kumho Tire,
this Court must screen proffered expert testimony for
relevance and reliability. See Bland v. Verizon Wireless,
(VAW) L.L.C., 538 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir. 2008). A
reliable opinion must be based on scientific methodology
rather than on subjective belief or unsupported speculation.
See Turner v. Iowa Fire Equip. Co., 229 F.3d 1202,
1208 (8th Cir. 2000). In assessing reliability, the Court
should consider factors including whether the proposed
expert's theory, methodology or technique: 1) can be and
has been tested; 2) has been subjected to peer review; 3) has
a known or potential rate of error; and 4) is generally
accepted by the relevant community. Bland, 538 F.3d
at 896. This list of factors is not exclusive, and this Court
is allowed “great flexibility” in its analysis.
Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co., 173 F.3d 1076, 1082
(8th Cir. 1999).
expert's information or opinion must also
“assist” the trier of fact in understanding or
determining a fact in issue. Fed.R.Evid. 702(a). “This
condition goes primarily to relevance.”
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591.
the Court's assessment of the admissibility of an
expert's opinion, Daubert makes clear that the
Court “should also be mindful of other applicable
rules, ” such as Fed.R.Evid. 403,  which states:
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more
of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting ...