Opinion ID: 2276854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Gatekeeping Responsibility

Text: During the original trial, Cinerama objected to the admissibility of the testimony and opinions of an expert called by Technicolor, Professor Bruce Klopfenstein. The original trial judge decided to hear the Klopfenstein testimony, but ruled that Cinerama would be entitled to move to strike in the post-trial briefing. Cinerama's post-trial briefs renewed its motion to exclude Klopfenstein's testimony. Although the appraisal opinion of the original trial judge characterized Klopfenstein's testimony as being as close to pseudo science as anything I have encountered, he did not rule on Cinerama's motion to strike it from the record. Cinerama renewed its motion to strike Klopfenstein's testimony in the briefing on remand. The successor judge deferred consideration. He delegated to the expert/master the task of mak[ing] the initial determination whether the Klopfenstein testimony and report is reliable and relevant. The successor judge's decisions to delegate initial responsibility to its appointed financial expert for ruling on Cinerama's motion to strike constitutes legal error. Delaware Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 requires a trial judge to act as a gatekeeper and to screen scientific, technical or specialized opinion evidence in order to exclude from consideration such evidence as it finds to be unreliable as a matter of law. [81] Cinerama's motion to strike the Klopfenstein testimony raises issues of relevance and reliability under Rules 702 [82] and 703. [83] Where, as here, the factual basis, data, principles [and] methods of an expert or their application in connection with his opinion are called into question, the trial judge must determine whether the testimony has a `reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.' [84] Last year, this Court adopted the holdings of Daubert [85] and Carmichael [86] as the correct interpretation of Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 generally and for the admission of expert testimony in the specific context of determining the acceptability of a valuation theory or technique in an appraisal proceeding. [87] In the event that Technicolor decides to call Klopfenstein as an expert witness at the new trial, the federal precedents will be didactic. We have no doubt that any motion Cinerama makes before or during trial will be decided promptly by the successor judge.