Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180314_0000148.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:23:12+00:00

Document:
FindACase | MacQueen v. Union Carbide Corp.
MacQueen v. Union Carbide Corp.
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
Presently pending before the Court in this asbestos-related personal injury action is a motion filed by remaining Defendant Crane Company ("Defendant" or "Crane") seeking to strike Plaintiff Marguerite MacQueen's ("Plaintiff) expert reports, on the ground that the reports are violative of Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 702 ("Motion"). (D.I. 624) Plaintiff opposes the Motion. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is DENIED.
The Court incorporates by reference the factual and procedural background regarding this case set out in its December 15, 2017 Memorandum Order. (D.I. 636 at 1-5) Below it makes reference to only those background facts necessary to give context to the instant Motion.
On March 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Superior Court of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. (D.I. l, ex. 1 ("Complaint")) In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted state law causes of action based on her husband David MacQueen's ("MacQueen") alleged exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products while MacQueen was employed: (1) by the United States Navy aboard the U.S.S. Randolph and the U.S.S. Independence from 1956 to 1960; and (2) as a salesman by Union Carbide Corporation from approximately 1963 to 1980. (Id. at ¶ 11) The matter was later removed to this Court, and proceeded as the instant consolidated action.
Rule 702 governs the admissibility of qualified expert testimony, providing that an expert witness may testify if: "(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." Fed.R.Evid. 702. Rule 702's requirements were examined in detail in Daubert, and have been said to embody "three distinct substantive restrictions on the admission of expert testimony: qualifications, reliability, and fit." Elcockv. Kmart Corp., 233 F.3d 734, 741 (3d Cir. 2000); see also B. Braun Melsungen AG v. Terumo Med. Corp., 749 F.Supp.2d 210, 222 (D. Del. 2010). This Motion implicates only the "fit" requirement.
With regard to that "fit" requirement, it "goes primarily to relevance"; the testimony at issue must "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue" and have "a valid .. . connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591-92 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396, 404 (3d Cir. 2003). The standard for fit, however, is "not high"; it is met "when there is a clear 'fit' connecting the issue in the case with the expert's opinion that will aid the jury in determining an issue in the case." Meadows v. Anchor Longwall & Rebuild, Inc., 306 Fed.Appx. 781, 790 (3d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
Overall, "Rule 702 embodies a 'liberal policy of admissibility.'" B. Braun Melsungen AG, 749 F.Supp.2d at 222 (quoting Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237, 243 (3d Cir. 2008)). Nonetheless, the burden is placed on the party offering expert testimony to show that it meets each of the standards for admissibility. Id. (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n.l0).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.