Moore v. International Paint

Case Updates

Click here to view the opinion.

The U.S. Chamber argued in its amicus brief that the appellants’ contention that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the opinions of their dose reconstruction expert is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of Federal Rules of Evidence and the standard for admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.and its progeny. In their appellate brief, the appellants repeatedly contend that the district court “erred by focusing on the underlying and disputed facts considered” by their expert “rather than his methodology.” But as both the Federal Rules and United States Supreme Court precedent make abundantly clear, an expert witnesses’ decisions in selecting the facts upon which he will rely is an integral part of his methodology, and an expert who predicates his opinion upon an unreliable factual basis should not be allowed to present his opinions to a jury.

The Fifth Circuit subsequently denied the Chamber’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief.