Opinion ID: 2746461
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the District Court Record

Text: Ms. Heer first argues the district court did not fulfill its gatekeeper function under Rule of Evidence 702 because it failed to make specific findings on the record regarding Mr. Stolz’s investigation of the Ensley case. Ms. Heer characterizes this alleged error as the application of an incorrect legal standard and thus argues we should review the district court’s decision de novo. In fact, Ms. Heer’s challenge goes to the manner in which the district court fulfilled its gatekeeper role, not the legal standard it applied. See Nacchio, 555 F.3d at 1241 (“Although [defendant] argues that the district court abdicated its gatekeeping function, his argument really concerns the manner in which the district court fulfilled this role, e.g., allegedly failing to ensure the creation of a sufficiently developed record . . . .”). Because the record reflects the district court’s application of the Daubert framework, which is the proper legal standard, we review for an abuse of discretion the manner in which the district court fulfilled its role as gatekeeper. As part of their gatekeeper function under Rule 702, district courts must create “a sufficiently developed record,” including “specific fact findings concerning their application of rule 702 and Daubert.” Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande W.R.R., 215 F.3d 1083, 1088 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Without such specific fact finding and thorough discussion on the record, “it is impossible on appeal to determine whether the district court carefully and meticulously review[ed] the proffered scientific evidence or simply made an off-the-cuff decision to admit the expert testimony.” Id. (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Goebel, the district court admitted the testimony of plaintiff’s expert witness over defendant’s 9 objection but made no findings on the record as to the expert’s qualifications or the relevance or reliability of the expert’s testimony. Id. at 1086–87. On appeal, we held that where the record contained no indication “the district court ever conducted any form of Daubert analysis whatsoever,” the district court had failed to perform its gatekeeper function under Rule 702. Id at 1088. Despite the district court’s indication that it had “fully considered the matter,” we held “this single statement [was] insufficient as a basis for judicial review.” Id. We therefore reversed the district court’s admission of the expert testimony and remanded for a new trial. Id at 1089. Unlike the record in Goebel, the record in this case is replete with the district court’s analysis and careful application of the Rule 702 and Daubert factors. In a tenpage memorandum decision, the district court thoroughly evaluated Mr. Stolz’s report, applied the Daubert factors to his methodology, and provided abundant support for its decision to exclude his testimony. The mere fact the district court did not mention Mr. Stolz’s minimal evaluation of the Ensley case—which consisted of conclusory statements based solely on Mr. Stolz’s review of the photographs from the Ensley case—is not enough to show it failed to sufficiently develop the record. This is particularly true where Defendants submitted their motion to exclude Mr. Stolz’s testimony simultaneously with their motion for summary judgment, the district court issued companion orders for the two motions, and the court explicitly ruled in its summary judgment order that evidence of the Ensley accident was inadmissible because Ms. Heer failed to show it was substantially similar to her accident. Under these circumstances, we may properly construe the district court’s failure to address the Ensley case in the order excluding Mr. 10 Stolz’s testimony as an implicit denial of Ms. Heer’s argument that the Ensley case provided support for Mr. Stolz’s opinion, and that it was denied for the same reason articulated in the order granting summary judgment. We therefore conclude the district court sufficiently developed the record and did not abuse its discretion in failing to discuss the Ensley case in the order excluding Mr. Stolz’s testimony.