Daubert: 10 Years Later

<i>This is the first of a two-part article. Part two will appear next month.</i> Product liability practitioners must be intimately familiar with the strategy and tactics of challenging expert testimony under Rule 702, Fed. R. Evid., and the so-called <i>Daubert</i> trilogy of cases. Nearly 10 years ago, the United States Supreme Court, in <i>Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.</i>, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), vastly changed the road map for the admission of expert testimony. A body of case law has grown since that decision, providing numerous avenues to challenge admission of expert testimony. Because product liability cases usually rely on expert testimony, <i>Daubert</i> challenges are particularly important in them.

21 minute read October 07, 2003 at 12:22 AM
By
Robert O. Lesley
Daubert: 10 Years Later

This is the first of a two-part article. Part two will appear next month.

Product liability practitioners must be intimately familiar with the strategy and tactics of challenging expert testimony under Rule 702, Fed.

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

Innovation Engineering: How Firms Can Think Bigger and Ask Better Questions

Most firms are aiming their newest tools at the work they already do — pouring their most powerful technology into running the same tasks a little faster. But when everyone automates the same tasks at once, no one pulls ahead. That reaches the future a little faster while leaving a firm’s largest opportunity untouched — and that opportunity isn’t doing more of the existing work, but transforming how the high-value work gets done.

June 01, 2026

Legal AI’s Biggest Mistake: Treating All Workflows the Same

Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.

June 01, 2026