Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01222/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01222-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2674 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ANTHONY GULIZIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-01222 PVT

ORDER DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE

TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR.

TUCKER

On August 2, 2005, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull for a

Pretrial conference.1 At the pretrial conference, Defendant’s Motion in Limine to exclude the testimony

of Dr. Tucker under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. came on for hearing. Expert testimony is only

admissible at trial if it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in

issue and the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and reliable. 

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593 (1993); see also Daubert v.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1316 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 189

(1995) (“Daubert II”) (Showing that testimony is based on sound science requires objective,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

independent validation of the expert's methodology.) 

Defendant argues that Dr. Tucker’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s heart condition was caused by the

accident in question was not the product of scientific method. Federal judges are charged with a

“gatekeeping role” in which they have authority to screen evidence. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596-97. 

However, when the gatekeeper is also the trier of fact, a more flexible approach is appropriate and the

gatekeeping function is less pressing. See Volk v. U.S., 57 F. Supp. 2d 888, 896 (N.D. Cal. 1999). 

Accordingly, although Defendant raises significant issues as to whether Dr. Tucker’s testimony is based

on scientifically valid principles, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude Dr. Tucker’s testimony is

denied.

Dated: August 2, 2005

/s/ Patricia V. Trumbull 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge