Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Product Liability Law & StrategyKickerFeaturesTopicsLitigationSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Practice Tip: Daubert's 'Fit' Requirement

By James H. Rotondo and Michael P. Pohorylo
July 29, 2012

Daubert requires that federal district court judges engage in a two-prong inquiry when addressing the admissibility of expert testimony. The district court must determine that an expert's proffered testimony has both a reliable foundation and an adequate fit. While many courts have addressed in-depth the first prong of this Daubert test, less attention has been paid to the second prong, the “fit” requirement. Among the courts that have engaged in a substantive “fit” analysis, the majority have focused on whether the expert's proffered testimony is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case or the issues presented to the trier of fact. Under this type of analysis, the courts essentially ask the question “is this testimony relevant?”

Three federal circuits discuss an alternative approach to the “fit” analysis and hold that there is an independent significance to the “fit” requirement. Specifically, these circuits hold that the “fit” requirement is satisfied when an expert's opinion is supported by the underlying data and have precluded expert opinions where there was too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.