Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, it was required to engage in a “two-step analysis” by examining both “‘whether the reasoning or methodology underlying [Lafferty’s] testimony is scientifically valid and * * * whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.’” NR 87:13 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-593).
The district court rejected Clark’s argument that the Daubert framework is inapplicable to this case because Lafferty’s testimony was based not on any scientific methodology but on his “experience and training.” NR 87:11. “Under the law of the Seventh Circuit,” the district court explained, “all expert testimony proferred under Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) for admission under Rule 702 must be tested to be sure the person possesses genuine expertise in a field and that [his] court testimony adheres to the same standards of intellectual rigor that are demanded in [his] professional work.” NR 87:12
(internal quotations omitted) testimony must be based upon to assist the trier of fact.” NR
(alterations in original). the expert’s special skills in 87:13 n.3.4/
In addition, “the proferred order to be both reliable and
Applying these settled principles of Seventh Circuit law, the district court concluded that Lafferty’s testimony was inadmissible for at least three independent reasons. First, “on the basis of the record before it” the court was unable to determine whether the “reasoning or methodology underlying Dr. Lafferty’s proferred testimony” was either “scientifically valid” or “properly * * * applied to this case.” NR 87:16. “The record does not establish,” the court explained, that Lafferty’s “proffered expert testimony adheres to the same standards of intellectual rigor that are demanded in his
4/ The district court noted, however, that an expert’s “experience or training” is relevant to whether theexpert“possessesexpertiseinaparticular ield,”i.e.,isquali ied.NR87:14;seealsoFed.R.Evid.702 (permitting a “witness qualifiedas an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to testify where testimony is based on “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge”).