For many decades prior to 1993, federal and state courts assessing the reliability and admissibility of expert testimony were guided primarily by Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), which held that such testimony must be based on principles and methods generally accepted in the scientific community. In 1993, however, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which adopted a more flexible standard giving trial judges greater leeway to accept or reject expert testimony based on a number of factors. The factors (of which general acceptance is only one) are not mandatory and may be accorded varying degrees of weight on a case by case basis. Daubert thus established a new federal standard that was, in the years following the decision, adopted by the majority of states as well. That majority did not, however, include Florida.
After the Florida Supreme Court issued post-Daubert decisions reaffirming the state’s adherence to Frye, the Florida Legislature in 2013 amended the Florida Evidence Code to incorporate the Daubert standard. In 2017, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt the Daubert amendment to the extent it was procedural in nature, stating, among other things, that the amendment raised “grave constitutional concerns” with respect to civil litigants’ right to a jury trial and right of access to the courts. Although the court did not then rule directly on the constitutionality of the amendment, it has now done so in DeLisle v. Crane Co., No. SC16-2182 (Fla., Oct. 15, 2018).
In a 4-3 majority opinion authored by Justice Peggy Quince, the DeLisle court deemed the Daubert amendment unconstitutional because the amendment (a) is procedural rather than substantive in nature, thus making its subject matter the province of the judicial rather than the legislative branch of the state’s government, and (b) conflicts with Florida Supreme Court precedent. With respect to the relative merits of the Frye and Daubert standards, Justice Quince expressed the court’s preference for Frye’s reliance on the collective knowledge of the scientific community, as opposed to what she described as the “scientific savvy of trial judges.” In a footnote, Justice Quince also expressed concern that the Daubert standard, if adopted in Florida, might impair public access to the courts (the right to which is guaranteed by the Florida Constitution) by increasing the expense of civil proceedings.
The implications of Daubert for the right of judicial access were discussed in detail in a concurring opinion by Justice Barbara Pariente, who asserted that corporate defendants “often exploit the requirements of Daubert as a sword against plaintiffs’ attorneys.” Because the Daubert test is broader than the Frye standard, she explained, “more litigants are exposed to the risk of exclusion of their experts’ testimony under Daubert.” Justice Pariente further noted that due to the multi-factorial nature of the Daubert standard, hearings to determine admissibility under that standard can be lengthy and costly, sometimes prohibitively so for litigants lacking financial resources. She went on to cite examples of law firms declining to take on meritorious cases due to the potential costs of anticipated Daubert challenges to the expert testimony that would be needed to establish liability.
Justice Charles Canady’s dissenting opinion did not discuss the merits of the competing standards, but was instead confined to disputing the court’s jurisdiction to decide the issue. Notably, a more vigorous defense of the Daubert standard previously was offered by Justice Ricky Polston, dissenting from the supreme court’s 2017 decision not to adopt the Daubert amendment. Dismissing the “grave constitutional concerns” cited by the majority in that decision, and noting the number of states that have adopted the Daubert test, Justice Polston asked rhetorically: “Has the entire federal court system for the last 23 years as well as 36 states denied parties’ rights to a jury trial and access to courts?” This query was echoed in pro-Daubert amicus briefs in the DeLisle case, but as seen above, it failed to carry the day.
While reasonable minds may differ concerning the best way to assess the reliability of expert testimony, all Florida litigants and counsel will benefit from the certainty this new decision provides in this vitally important aspect of civil litigation.
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- What You Need to Know About the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Build America TIFIA Loan
- Breaking News: Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Implementation of the FTC’s New Rule Banning Noncompete Agreements
- September 4th is Almost Here: How Employers Can Prepare for the Upcoming Effective Date of the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- Raising the Roof: The U.S. Department of Labor Announces Rule Raising Salary Thresholds for Overtime Exemptions
- New Guidelines Anticipated Following HHS’s Health Cybersecurity Concept Paper
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
- Florida Appellate Court Provides Further Guidance Regarding New Summary Judgment Rule
- Pith? Perfect for Lienors, Not So Much for Landlords: Protecting Rights When Improvements Are Made to Commercial Tenancies
Popular Categories
- Employment and Labor
- Construction
- Business of Real Estate
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Construction Litigation
- Competition
- Landlord-Tenant
- Real Estate Law
- Public Private Partnership
- Cybersecurity
- Intellectual Property
- Construction
- Appeals
- Development/Land Use
- Litigation
- Public Finance
- Contracts
- Trusts and Estates
- Data Security
- Business
- Supreme Court
- Privacy
- Technology
- Litigation (Appellate)
- IP Litigation
- Patents
- Business
- Regulatory Compliance
- Florida Government Contracts
- Health Care
- Foreclosures
- Trademark
- Contracting
- Financial Institutions
- Compliance
- Estate planning
- International Dispute Resolution
- Property Tax
- Conveyances
- Florida Public Contracts
- Government Contracting
- Government Contracts
- Government
- Lease
- Appellate Blog
- Patent Office
- Insurance
- Wealth planning
- Federal Government Contracting
- Cyber fraud
- Florida Bid Protests
- Public Contracts
- Infringement
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- GAO
- International Arbitration and Litigation
- Arbitration
- Bid Protest
- International
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Copyright
- Title
- Promissory Notes
- Small Business
- Florida Procurement
- Public procurement
- Consumer Privacy
- PTAB
- General Liability
- Technology
- International Arbitration
- Liens
- Liens and encumbrances
- Creditor's Rights
- Bidding
- Attorneys' Fees
- Inter Partes Review
- Power Generation
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Contracting
- Government Vendor
- State Government Contracts
- Venue
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Florida Administrative Law
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Florida Public Procurement
- Russia-Related Arbitration
- Mortgages
- Eviction
- FINRA
- Record on Appeal
- Rehearing
- Loan guaranties
- Patents - Assignor Estoppel
- Dispute Resolution
- Statute of limitations
- Statute of repose
- Maritime
- Liens
- Damages
- Briefing
- Patents - Obviousness
- Request for Proposal
- Department of Labor
- Trade Secrets
- Commercial Brokerage
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Design Professionals
- Certiorari
- email hacking
- Forum Selection
- Offers of Judgment
- Prevailing Party
- Settlements
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- Lis Pendens
- Banking
- Designer Liability
- Finality
- Fintech
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Evidence
- Evidence
- Expert
- Expert Science
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Marketing/Advertising
- Mootness
- Preservation
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Unlicensed Contracting
- Veteran Owned Business
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Homestead
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016