ACE American Ins Co v. Cantiere Del Pardo S.P.A et al

Filing 190

ORDER denying 183 Motion in Limine without prejudice. Signed by Judge Alfred V. Covello on December 10, 2012. (Gentile, N.)

3:06CV01594(AVC). 12/10/12. The plaintiff’s motion preclude the
testimony of the defendant’s expert, Matthew Mckenzie, is denied
without prejudice. If appropriate, the plaintiff may move to
strike the expert’s testimony at the time of trial. The second
circuit has recognized that Federal Rule of Evidence 702
contains a “liberal standard of admissibility for expert
opinions.” Nimely v. City of N.Y., 414 F.3d 381, 395 (2d Cir.
2005). “Moreover, as noted in Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharm.,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)], ‘[v]igorous cross-examination,
presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on
the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of
attacking shaky but admissible evidence.’” Ryan v. Nat. Union
Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2010 WL 2232670 (D. Conn. 2010)
(quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596). At the time of trial, the
court can “ensure the reliability and relevancy” of the
testimony and “make certain that [the] expert, whether basing
testimony upon professional studies or personal experience,
employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor
that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant
field.” Kunho Tire Co., Ltd. V. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152
(1999).
So ordered.
/s/
Alfred V. Covello, U.S.D.J.