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.)

Download PDF
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.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?