Opinion ID: 201308
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allegedly Conclusory and Unreliable Expert Opinions

Text: 16 We find that the Magistrate Judge was also within his discretion in allowing the allegedly conclusory and unreliable opinions of Smith's experts. Here again, the Magistrate Judge scrupulously considered each paragraph in question and determined that some opinions were inadmissible legal conclusions, while others could not be characterized as `conclusory' in the sense contemplated by Hayes v. Douglas Dynamics, Inc.  Minott, 2003 WL 22078070, at  (citing Hayes v. Douglas Dynamics, Inc., 8 F.3d 88, 92 (1st Cir. 1993) (Although expert testimony may be more inferential than that of fact witnesses, in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment an expert opinion must be more than a conclusory assertion about ultimate legal issues.)). For example, the Magistrate Judge granted the Estate's Motion to Strike as to Paragraph 6 of DuBois' Affidavit because he found it to be an inadmissible legal conclusion. Id. at . 17 The Magistrate Judge also considered whether the opinions were reliable under the Daubert standard and thoroughly explained his determinations. Id. (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786). For example, the Magistrate Judge denied the Motion to Exclude for Paragraph 14 of Leavitt's affidavit, finding that Leavitt's opinion that Minott would be able to take steps to save himself if he had time to respond, was sufficiently reliable for Daubert purposes, because although it was not highly technical, it was based on a mixture of specialized knowledge of [the fishing] industry and highly personal knowledge of the habits and character of [Minott]. Id. at .