2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-25-2003 

# M agi s tr ini v . O ne H our M a r t ini z in g P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2331

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" M a g i s tr ini v

. One H our M a r t ini z in g " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 434. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/434* H ono rable A rthur L . Ala rcon , Sen ior C ircuit Jud ge fo r the U nited S tates C ourt

of Appeals f

or t he Ninth Cir cuit , si tt ing by desi gnati on. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 02-2331

___________ KATHY MAGI STRI NI

Appellant
v. ON E H OU R M AR TIN IZI NG DR Y C LE AN IN G; M AR TIN FR AN CH ISE S, IN C.;

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; R. R. S TREET & CO, INC. JOH N D OE MA NU FA CT UR ER S, (1-50); JILL DOES SUPPLIER S/DISTRIBUT ORS, (51-100)

___________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civi l No. 96-cv- 04991) District Judge: T he H onorab le Faith S. H ochbe rg

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

March 11, 2003 BEFOR E: SLOVI TER, NYGAARD, an d ALAR CON, * Circu it Judges .2 (Fil ed: June 25, 2003)

___________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge .

Kathy Magistrini appeals a District Court’s Daubert hearing order that preclude d testimony from her causation expert . Magistrini al so chall enges the Dis tri ct Court’s de cisi on to admit certain tes timonyfor the s ole purpos e of the Daubert hearing and to em ploy Dr. M ark W eiss as a technical ad visor.

When a party seeks t o admit expert tes timony , the Distri ct Court must make an init ial de termination, in a prel iminary hearing unde r Fed. R. Evi d. 104(a) , that the req uire me nts o f Fe d. R . Ev id. 7 02 h ave bee n m et. Daubert v. Merrel l Dow Pharm., Inc. , 509 U.S . 579, 5 92 (1 993 ). Rule 702 impo ses a sp ecial o bligatio n on the D istrict Jud ge to “ensure t hat anyand all scientific testimony or evidence admi tted i s not onl y r elevant , but reli able. ” Id . at

589. In as se ss in g wh ethe r p ro ff er ed sc ie nt if

ic ex pe rt te stim ony

is re li ab le , w e have explai ned that

the Dist rict Court shoul d admit expert tes timony“if there are ‘good ground s’ for the exp ert's conclusion” no twithstanding the judge's belief that there a re bette r gro und s fo r som e alte rna tive c onc lusio n. Heller v. Shaw , 167 F.3d 146, 152-53 (3d C ir. 1 99 9) (c ita tio ns om itte d) . T he D ist ric t C ou rt m us t al so “e xa m in e th e e xp er t's3

conc lusion s in ord er to de termin e w hethe r they cou ld reliab ly follow from the fa cts known to the expert and the methodologyused.” Id . at 153. However, “nothing in ei ther Daubert or the Feder al Rules of Evidence requires a di stri ct court to admit opinion evidence t

hat is connected t o existing data only by the ipse d ixit of the exp ert. A court may concl ude that

there i s simpl y t oo great an analy tica l gap bet ween the data a nd the opinion pr offered. ” General Elec. Co. v. Joiner , 522 U .S. 136, 145 -46 (199 7).

We review the Dist

rict Court’s de cisi on to excl ude or admit testimony under Daubert , a s wel l a s t o empl oy a t echn ic al advi sor , f or abuse of di scr et ion . To demonstrate abuse, Appel lant must show that t

he District Court ’s based “ its opinion on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an erroneous legal conclusi on, or an i mproper applic ation of

law to fact .” LaSa ll e Nat . Ba nk v . Fi rs t Co nn. Hol di ng Group , L .L .C. XXIII , 287 F.3d 279, 288 (3d Cir. 200 2).

Inasmuch as t

he District Court

has already s et fort

h the fact

ual and pro ced ura l histo ry of th is ca se, w e ne ed n ot re pea t that histo ry here . See Magistri ni v. On e H our M artinizin g D ry C leanin g, et al. , 180 F.Supp. 2d 584 (D. N.J. 2002). The Distri ct Court ha s careful ly and completel y expl ained i ts re asons for e xcluding t he testimony of Appel lant’ s causation expert and admitting other

testimony i n its thoughtful Me moran dum Opinio n and O rder. The D istrict Court did not ab use its discretion. It properl y conducted the Daubert hearing, applie d the correct l egal st andard, and made no clearlyerroneous findings of fact. Given the District Court’s careful analy sis, no purpose4

wil l b e s er vedby th is cou rt und er taki ng are dun dan t d is cus si on s imp lyto re achth e s ame result. T he D istrict Co urt’s ac tions in selectin g a tec hnica l adviso r we re also we ll within its discr etion. Accordingly , we will affirm the decisi on of the Dist rict Court for substant iall y the reasons set forth in t he District Court ’s thoughtful Memorandum Opinion without

further elaboration._________________________

TO THE C LERK:

Please fi le the foregoing opi nion.

/s/ Richard L . Nygaard Circuit Judge