Daubert & FRE 702: Economic Expert Admissibility

FRE 702 and the Expert's Duty

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (and state equivalents) requires expert testimony to be based on sufficient facts, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application to the facts. Daubert v. Merrell Dow and successors give courts gatekeeping authority.

Forensic economists strengthen admissibility by anchoring projections in verifiable records, documenting BLS/OEWS and other data sources, stating assumptions explicitly, and separating legal conclusions from economic calculations.

Daubert Factors Applied to Economics

• Testing: Can the methodology be tested against known data?
• Peer review: Are methods published in forensic economics literature?
• Error rates: Are calculations reproducible with stated assumptions?
• Standards: Does the expert follow profession norms for work-life, PV, and occupational data?
• General acceptance: Are BLS data and recognized tables widely used?

Common Grounds for Exclusion

Speculative career paths without earnings history or vocational support. Cherry-picked BLS occupations maximizing or minimizing loss. Failure to credit undisputed mitigation. Double counting with other experts. Present value methodology inconsistent with forum law. Conflation of economist role with legal damages theory.

Building the Record for Admissibility

Retain early. Provide complete records. Direct the damages measure in writing. Ensure vocational support for capacity cases. Request the expert document data sources in the report appendix. Consider Daubert briefing citing the expert's methodology compliance—not outcome.

Rebuttal and Daubert Motions

When opposing economist's methodology is flawed, rebuttal experts support Daubert motions with specific critiques tied to FRE 702 factors. Future Earnings Expert connects counsel with economists experienced in rebuttal and admissibility challenges on both sides.