United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
TERENCE C. KERN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is plaintiff Gevorg Nikoghosyan's Motion to
Exclude Expert Witness Testimony of Dr. Foster. Doc. 33.
Plaintiff asserts Dr. Foster's testimony should be
excluded because (1) he is unqualified; (2) his testimony is
not based on sufficient facts or data; and (3) his testimony
is not the product of reliable principles. Id.
Defendant opposes the motion. Doc. 39.
lawsuit arises from injuries Plaintiff sustained in a
collision between two tractor-trailers on September 19, 2016.
Both Plaintiff and Defendant Major Green were driving
semi-truck tractors eastbound on I-44 in Craig County when
Green's semi rear-ended Plaintiff's semi. Law
enforcement responded to the scene and the collision report
stated that Plaintiff sustained no injury as a result of the
collision. Plaintiff did not, at the time, seek treatment for
any injuries, but two days later sought treatment in
Hopewell, Virginia, and subsequently sought additional
treatment in Los Angeles.
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, Dr. Foster provided a report regarding
the care and treatment Plaintiff obtained after the
collision. Doc. 33, Ex. A.
Rule of Evidence 702 (“Rule 702”) provides that:
witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.
objection to an expert's testimony is raised, the court
must perform Daubert gatekeeper duties before the
jury is permitted to hear the evidence. Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93
(1993); Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S.
137, 149 (1999). These gatekeeper duties require the Court to
determine both (1) that the expert witness is qualified to
offer the opinions he or she is espousing and (2) that the
proponent of the expert witness has proved by a preponderance
of the evidence that expert's opinions are both relevant
and reliable. Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 141, 152. When
the testimony of an expert is challenged, the proponent of
the testimony bears the burden of establishing its
admissibility. United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d
1234, 1241 (10th Cir. 2009) (en banc); Fed.R.Evid.
courts have broad discretion to determine whether a proposed
expert may testify. Rodgers v. Beechcraft Corp., 759
Fed.Appx. 646, 658 (10th Cir. 2018) (citing United States
v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255, 1265 (10th Cir. 1999)). In
order to qualify as an expert, a proposed witness must
possess “such skill, experience or knowledge in that
particular field as to make it appear that his opinion would
rest on substantial foundation and would tend to aid the
trier of fact in his search for truth.” LifeWise
Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917, 928 (10th Cir.
2004). An expert who “possesses knowledge as to a
general field” but “lacks specific knowledge does
not necessarily assist the jury.” City of Hobbs v.
Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 576, 587 (10th Cir.