Opinion ID: 718270
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Daubert challenge.

Text: 41 In Daubert, the Supreme Court made clear that the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule 702, not Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), governs the admissibility of expert scientific evidence. 509 U.S. at 597-99, 113 S.Ct. at 2799. The appropriate test of admissibility depends on the trial court's determination of a reliable foundation and relevance to the issues at trial. Pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles will satisfy those demands. Id. 42 Daubert supplies a test for admissibility of scientific evidence. 509 U.S. at 582, 113 S.Ct. at 2791 (In this case we are called upon to determine the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial.). Pacific Lumber's Daubert challenge, however, is raised in the context of an insufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, not a challenge to the admission of the evidence. In Pacific Lumber's view, whether admitted at trial or not, EPIC's scientific evidence of impaired breeding of marbled murrelets fails the Daubert test because it is irrelevant and unreliable, and therefore is insufficient to support the district court's judgment. 43 Although we recognize that evidence which is unreliable is necessarily insufficient, the appropriate time to raise Daubert challenges is at trial. By failing to object to evidence at trial and request a ruling on such an objection, a party waives the right to raise admissibility issues on appeal. Fenton v. Freedman, 748 F.2d 1358, 1360 (9th Cir.1984); Dale Benz, Inc., Contractors v. American Cas. Co., 305 F.2d 641, 643 (9th Cir.1962). The rationale behind this rule applies to Pacific Lumber's Daubert argument in this appeal, even though it couches its argument in terms of insufficiency of the evidence, because its insufficiency argument is identical to the admissibility objection which it waived. 44 Pacific Lumber raised its Daubert objections in the district court in its pretrial Objections To Evidence, filed June 27, 1994. The district court, however, did not rule on these objections and Pacific Lumber did not request a ruling. This is clear from Pacific Lumber's failure to state in its briefs on appeal where in the record it requested, or the trial court made, any ruling on the Daubert objections. See, Circuit Rule 28-2.5. Nor has Pacific Lumber provided as part of the excerpt of record in this appeal the portion of the reporter's transcript recording any discussion by court or counsel involving the challenge to admissibility of EPIC's scientific evidence. See, Circuit Rule 30-1.3(a)(vii). 45 By failing to request a ruling in the district court on its Daubert objections, Pacific Lumber evaded that court's decision of the issue, and denied EPIC the opportunity to lay a better foundation for the evidence. See Fenton, 748 F.2d at 1360. In this circumstance, permitting Pacific Lumber to challenge on appeal the reliability of EPIC's scientific evidence under Daubert, in the guise of an insufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, would give Pacific Lumber an unfair advantage. Pacific Lumber would be free to gamble on a favorable judgment before the trial court, knowing that [it could] seek reversal on appeal because of [its] failure to obtain a ruling on [its] objections. Id. We will not permit this. 46 We conclude Pacific Lumber waived its Daubert objections to EPIC's scientific evidence of impaired breeding by failing to request a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence in the district court. 47