In Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. vs. The Raymond Corporation (No. 10-3912, April 3, 2012), the Sixth Circuit evaluated the trial court’s exclusion of Plaintiff’s expert testimony, and related successful defendant motion for summary judgment because of a failure to have minimally-required expert witness evidence. In upholding the trial court’s exclusion under the abuse of discretion standard, the Sixth Circuit provided practical guidance regarding what is expected for expert testimony.
In upholding the district court’s refusal to admit Newell’s expert testimony, the Sixth Circuit stated:
The district court identified at least four red flags in [the expert’s] methodology: anecdotal evidence, improper extrapolation, failure to consider other possible causes, and, significantly, a lack of testing.”
The four items to be avoided that are listed in the above quote can be used as a quality control check for what should be done. Expert witnesses should:
- Use unbiased sampling that is representative of what is tested;
- Extrapolate results using either the rigors of statistical sampling, or another applicable generally accepted approach;
- Consider alternative explanations for the observations at issue; and
- Test results to the extent allowable in the circumstances.