Josepha W. Austin; Robin L. Cruz; Gordana Pobric; and Jennifer Haselman v. Monsanto Company; Bayer CropScience L.P.; Solutia, Inc.; Pharmacia, L.L.C.; Pharmacia, Inc.; and Pharmacia Corp.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Vermont denied Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude portions of the proposed testimony and opinions of seven experts retained by Monsanto in a PCB exposure case. Applying Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, the court concluded that the experts were qualified and that challenges to their methodologies, reliance on studies and data, and potential bias generally concerned the weight of their testimony rather than admissibility.

Holdings

1. Expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 when the proponent shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the expert is qualified, the testimony will assist the trier of fact, it is based on sufficient facts or data, it results from reliable principles and methods, and the expert reliably applied those principles and methods to the case.
2. The proposed testimony of Richard Lewis, Richard S. Legro, Edwin van Wijngaarden, Wayne Hubbard, John Woodyard, Kurt Herman, and Peter Shields was not shown to be inadmissible under Rule 702; plaintiffs' motion to exclude their testimony was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the proposed testimony of seven defense experts satisfied Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert reliability, qualification, and relevance requirements.
2. Whether alleged disagreements among experts concerning the significance of studies, exposure thresholds, regulatory materials, testing data, and alternative methodologies required exclusion of the proposed testimony.
3. Whether alleged expert bias, reliance on disputed facts or studies, lack of experience in a particular specialty, or purportedly speculative opinions rendered the proposed testimony inadmissible.

Disposition

denied