Opinion ID: 164301
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of Dr. Healy's Testimony

Text: 38 [W]e review de novo the question of whether the district court performed its gatekeeper role and applied the proper legal standard in admitting an expert's testimony. We then review for abuse of discretion the trial court's actual application of the gatekeeper standard in deciding whether to admit or exclude an expert's testimony. 39 Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co., 346 F.3d 987, 989-90 (10th Cir.2003) (internal citations omitted). 40 The Millers' focus is on the first type of review, whether the district court exceeded the scope of a proper Daubert inquiry. In their view, the district court followed Daubert for a while, but then  went beyond ... [ Daubert ] ... to nit-pick bits and pieces of Dr. Healy's work and to question whether or not those portions followed proper scientific methodology. Aplt. Br. at 30. The court erred, they argue, by straying far beyond the proper scope of the Daubert ... matrix of analysis, and premising an exclusionary decision on concerns or questions which affect the weight rather than the admissibility of Dr. Healy's testimony. Id. at 42. We disagree. 41 The district court carefully followed Daubert in determining whether Dr. Healy's opinions were founded on scientific principles. What the Millers call nit-picking, we would call being thorough. The analysis outlined in Daubert is extensive, requiring the district court to carefully and meticulously review the proffered scientific evidence. United States v. Call, 129 F.3d 1402, 1405 (10th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court did not exceed the scope of the Daubert inquiry by, for example, considering Dr. Healy's credibility or weighing the evidence. See McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co., 61 F.3d 1038, 1045 (2d Cir.1995); Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C.Cir. 1996). Rather, substantially relying on the opinions of the court-appointed experts, the court carefully and properly performed its gatekeeping function under Daubert. 42 Furthermore, to the extent that the Millers argue that the district court abused its discretion in applying the gatekeeper standard, we find no abuse of discretion. We hold that the district court did not err in excluding Dr. Healy's testimony. 43