Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gasperson v. Plano Synergy Holdings, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division

April 3, 2019

DANIEL GASPERSON, ROSALIE GASPERSON, Plaintiffs,
v.
PLANO SYNERGY HOLDINGS, INC., SYNERGY OUTDOORS, LLC, PRIMAL VANTAGE CO., INC., AMERISTEP, INC, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE

          ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         Before the Court is Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude or Limit the Opinion Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert William Munsell. (Doc. 71.) The motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 72, 78, 80.) Defendants seek to limit or exclude Mr. Munsell's testimony because Defendants argue his testimony is based upon speculation, ignores testimony and evidence, and he has not conducted any reliable tests. Plaintiffs argue Mr. Munsell's opinions satisfy the requirements of Daubert and Fed.R.Evid. 702. After careful consideration, Defendants' Motion in Limine is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as fully discussed below.

         Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony, and provides that, “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Federal Rule of Evidence 702 states,

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion if:
(a) the expert's scientific 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 methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of this case.

         “To satisfy the reliability requirement, the proponent of the expert testimony must show by a preponderance of the evidence both that the expert is qualified to render the opinion and that the methodology underlying his conclusions is scientifically valid.” Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748, 758-59 (8th Cir. 2006). “To show that the expert testimony is relevant, the proponent must show that the reasoning or methodology in question is applied properly to the facts in issue.” Id. at 759. In Daubert, the Supreme Court listed four factors to consider when determining the admissibility of scientific expert testimony:

(1) Whether the proposed evidence has been tested;
(2) Whether the proposed scientific evidence has been subject to peer review;
(3) Whether the potential rate of error is known; and
(4) Whether the proposed evidence is generally accepted in ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.