United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
States Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE AN EXPERT
WITNESS AND REQUESTING A MORE DETAILED EXPERT REPORT
Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge
September 7, 2016, Terry Teenier (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against Charter Communications, LLC
(“Defendant”). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff's
complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by retaliating against Plaintiff for
exercising FMLA rights. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c).
before the Court is Defendant's Motion in Limine to
exclude the report and testimony of Plaintiff's Expert
Economist, Frank Stafford. Dkt. No. 9. Defendant argues that
Stafford's testimony is not supported by sufficient
factual foundations and should therefore be excluded.
Id. at 2 (Pg. ID 60). For the reasons stated herein,
Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff shall amend or supplement his Expert
Economist's report or the report will be stricken.
Rule of Evidence 702 governs the use of expert testimony.
In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517,
528 (6th Cir. 2008). Rule 702, as amended in 2000, reflects
the Supreme Court's decisions in Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire
Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Id.
702 provides that a trial court may permit an expert witness
given the satisfaction of three requirements. Id. at
528-29. First, the witness must be qualified by
“knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education.” Fed.R.Evid. 702. Second, the proffered
testimony must be relevant and must “assist the trier
of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue.” Id. Lastly, the expert's testimony
must be reliable. Id. Courts determine reliability
by considering whether the testimony is based upon
“sufficient facts or data, ” whether the
testimony is the product of “reliable principles and
methods, ” and whether the expert “has applied
the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the
Supreme Court has explained that district courts carry an
obligation to act as a gatekeeper ensuring the reliability of
expert testimony. Kumho Tire Co., 526 U.S. 137, 147
(1999). However, “rejection of expert testimony is the
exception, rather than the rule.” United States v.
LaVictor, 878 F.3d 428, 442 (6th Cir. 2017).
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589-95, the Supreme Court
provided four factors a court may use when determining the
reliability of an expert witness's testimony. The factors
include (a) the theory's testability, (b) whether it has
been a subject of peer review or publication, (c) the
“known or potential rate of error, ” and (d) the
“degree of acceptance within the relevant
community.” Id. The Sixth Circuit has
recognized that the Daubert factors “are not
dispositive in every case” and should only be applied
“where they are reasonable measures of the reliability
of expert testimony.” Gross v. Comm'r, 272
F.3d 333, 339 (6th Cir. 2001).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure further dictate procedural
requirements for experts' written reports. Rule
26(a)(2)(B) requires that an expert report contain:
(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will
express and the basis and reasons for them;
(ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming
(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support
(iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of
all publications authored in the previous 10 years;
(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4
years, the witness testified as an expert at trial ...