© D.L. Crumbley
Weight v. Admissibility (Continued)
Admissibility affirmed. Exxon did not waive appeal of pretrial evidentiary ruling by failure to renew objections at trial, such renewal being unnecessary under Fed. R. Evid. 103(a), as amended in 2000, when the district court has made definitive pretrial rulings on motions to strike. But expert was qualified and his opinion were admissible. Exxon says expert’s method were unsophisticated and that he should have concluded “competitive impact analysis” for each station to show that Exxon’s price caused it to loose business. But purpose of expert’s testimony was not to isolate precise economic effect for each station, but rather to show that Exxon had set commercially unreasonable price. Daubert analysis should not supplant trial on merits, and any defects in expert’s method could be addressed through cross-examination.
Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F. 3d 448 (5th Cir. 2002).
Admissibility affirmed. Plaintiff’s expert was qualified, and used mathematical extrapolation, straight line linear progression, and averaging to arrive at his figures. Defendants attacked none of these methodologies, and their objections go to weight, not reliability.
CDM Mfg. v. Complete Sales Representation, Inc. No. 01-56138 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2002) (unpublished).