In Re TMI Litigation, 96-7623

Citation199 F.3d 158
Decision Date04 January 2000
Docket NumberNo. 96-7625,No. 96-7624,Nos. 96-7623,No. 96-7623,96-7623,96-7624,96-7625,s. 96-7623
Parties(3rd Cir. 1999) IN RE: TMI LITIGATION LORI DOLAN; JOSEPH GAUGHAN; RONALD WARD; ESTATE OF PEARL HICKERNELL; KENNETH PUTT; ESTATE OF ETHELDA HILT; PAULA OBERCASH; JOLENE PETERSON; ESTATE OF GARY VILLELLA; ESTATE OF LEO BEAM, Appellants IN RE: TMI LITIGATION ALL PLAINTIFFS EXCEPT LORI DOLAN, JOSEPH GAUGHAN, RONALD WARD, ESTATE OF PEARL HICKERNELL, KENNETH PUTT, ESTATE OF ETHELDA HILT, PAULA OBERCASH, JOLENE PETERSON, ESTATE OF GARY VILLELLA AND ESTATE OF LEO BEAM, Appellants IN RE: TMI LITIGATION ALL PLAINTIFFS; ARNOLD LEVIN; LAURENCE BERMAN; LEE SWARTZ, Appellants/96-7624/96-7625
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo.

Before: GREENBERG and McKEE, Circuit Judges, and GREENAWAY, District Judge.*

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Slip Opinion filed in this case on November 2, 1999 (193 F.3d 613), be amended as follows:

On page 85 (193 F.3d at 665), at the conclusion of the sentence, "With the parameters of our inquiry in mind of our review in mind, the teachings of Daubert and the aforementioned scientific principles as our guideposts, we can now proceed to apply yardstick of Daubert to the expert opinions at issue here and determine if they were properly excluded under the Rules of Evidence.." insert as footnote number 93 the following text:

Our recent holding in Padillas v. Stork-Gamco, Inc., 186 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 1999), does not assist our inquiry. In Padillas, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's expert's report did not meet Daubert standards for admissibility. The District Court excluded the expert's report and granted summary judgment to the defendant without an in limine hearing. We reversed and remanded for an in limine hearing.

We were concerned with the process the District Court must generally use in exercising its gatekeeping role under Daubert. We noted that "[w]e have long stressed the importance of in limine hearings under Rule 104(a) in making the reliability determination required under Rule 702 and Daubert." Id. at 417 (quoting United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1241 (3d Cir. 1985); In Re Paoli Railroad yard PCB Litigation, 916 F.2d 829, 854 (3d Cir. 1990)("Paoli I"); and Hines v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 262, 272 (3d Cir. 1991)), especially when a Daubert challenge is made in the context of a summary judgment motion or where summary judgment will inevitably be granted if the proffered evidence is excluded. Thus, we expressed our belief that an in limine hearing is important, even in the absence of a request for such a hearing by the proponent of the expert testimony, because the plaintiff "need[s] an opportunity to be heard" on the critical issues of scientific reliability and validity. Id. When afforded such an "opportunity to be heard," a plaintiff has a chance to have his or her expert demonstrate and explain the "good grounds" upon which the expert...

To continue reading

Request your trial
123 cases
  • Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Amersham Health, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • March 25, 2009
    ...interviews conducted by nonprofessionals aligned with counsel. In re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613, 698 (3d Cir. 1999), amended by, 199 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2000). However, In re TMI Litig. is not analogous to the present case because Dr. Schmittlein's and Dr. Stewart's analyses were not based on s......
  • Estate of Thomas v. Fayette Cnty., 2:14-cv-00551
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • July 8, 2016
    ...not on the conclusions generated by the principles and methodology." In re TMI Litig. , 193 F.3d 613, 665 (3d Cir.1999)amended , 199 F.3d 158 (3d Cir.2000). See also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) ( "[The objective] is to make certain......
  • Soldo v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., CIV.A.98-1712.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • January 13, 2003
    ...under the standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); In re TMI Litig., 199 F.3d 158, 159 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations 20. While the Court has engaged in its own independent analysis regarding the admissibility of plaintiffs experts' t......
  • Petit v. City of Chicago, 90 C 4984.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • October 23, 2002
    ...is well within the factfinder's power to reject the analysis. See In re TMI Litigation, 193 F.3d 613, 675-76 (3d Cir.1999), amended, 199 F.3d 158 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 530 U.S. 1225, 120 S.Ct. 2238, 147 L.Ed.2d 266 (2000); Cardiac Pacemakers, Lie. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 2002 WL 18015......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Econometrics. Legal, Practical, and Technical Issues
    • January 1, 2014
    ...Consol. II, 922 F. Supp. 997 (M.D. Pa. 1996), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds , 193 F.3d 613 (3d Cir. 1999), amended, 199 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2000), 213 432 Econometrics Trigon Ins. Co. v. United States, 204 F.R.D. 277 (E.D. Va. 2001), 191 U U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Braspetro......
  • Expert Discovery
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Econometrics. Legal, Practical, and Technical Issues
    • January 1, 2014
    ...to meet deadlines” in non-antitrust case), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 193 F.3d 613 (3d Cir. 1999), amended, 199 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2000). But see Schanzer v. United Techs., 120 F. Supp. 2d 200, 206-07 (D. Conn. 2000) (denying in a non-antitrust context a motion to excl......
  • Chapter 3 Procedural Rules Preceding the Daubert Determination
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Institute Admitting Expert Valuation Evidence Before the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts
    • Invalid date
    ...68 F.3d 597, 608 (2d Cir. 1995).[69] See, e.g., Padillas v. Stork-Gamco Inc., 186 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir. 1999); see also In re TMI Litig., 199 F.3d 158, 159 (3d Cir. 2000).[70] Fed. R. Eyid. 702.[71] Id.[72] 171 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 2001).[73] The defendant's expert was a CPA, a certif......
  • Challenging the Unreliable Damages Expert-part I
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 32-10, October 2003
    • Invalid date
    ...no later than thirty-five days prior to trial or it is deemed waived. 60. Shreck, supra, note 11 at 78. 61. See, e.g., In re TMI Litig., 199 F.3d 158, 159 (3d 2000), modifying In re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613 (3d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1225 (2000). The decision as to whether to ho......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT