Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts: A yearly study of trends and outcomes (2012)

April 2013
  • Print-friendly version
Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts: A yearly study of trends and outcomes (2012)

At a glance

This study analyzes post-Kumho Tire (2000–2012) challenges to financial expert witnesses under the Daubert standards. We identify observable trends in the frequency and outcome of these challenges based on written opinions in federal and state courts.

In 1993, the US Supreme Court’s opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. addressed the admissibility of expert scientific testimony in federal trials, affirming a gatekeeping role for judges in determining the reliability and relevance of the testimony.

In 1999, the Supreme Court’s decision in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael clarified that the Daubert criteria were applicable to all types of expert testimony in federal jurisdictions, not merely testimony relating to science. Subsequently, many state courts also adopted the Daubert standard.

This study analyzes post-Kumho Tire (2000–2012) challenges to financial expert witnesses under the Daubert standards. We identify observable trends in the frequency and outcome of these challenges based on written opinions in federal and state courts.

The study examines these challenges to provide insight into why experts were challenged and excluded and to delve more analytically into the causes of exclusions based on the experts’ qualifications and the relevance and reliability of the expert testimony. The study also summarizes some of the specific financial, statistical, economic, and valuation methods that courts have found inadmissible.