The opinion of the court was delivered by: Karen E. Schreier Chief Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF DR. WALTER LIERMAN
Defendants, Lamar Advertising of South Dakota and Cody Burton, move in limine to limit the testimony of plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Walter Lierman. Plaintiffs, Richard Kay and Deana Kay, oppose the motion. For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion is denied.
The relevant background for purposes of addressing defendants' motion in limine to limit plaintiffs' expert witness is as follows: On July 19, 2006, plaintiffs, Richard and Deana Kay, were involved in a motorcycle accident at an intersection near Sturgis, South Dakota. Plaintiffs were riding a motorcycle that was driven by Richard Kay (Kay). The motorcycle collided with a boom truck owned by defendant, Lamar Advertising, and driven by Cody Burton, an employee of Lamar Advertising.
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants claiming defendants' truck was negligently operated in such a manner that caused plaintiffs' injuries. Defendants deny any negligence on their behalf and assert several affirmative defenses and a counterclaim against plaintiff Richard Kay on the basis that Kay operated the motorcycle in a negligent manner.
Plaintiffs identified Dr. Lierman in their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) disclosure statement. Dr. Lierman submitted his report and analyses. He was later deposed by defendants' attorney.
Defendants move in limine under Rule 702 to exclude Dr. Lierman's testimony that would express an opinion related to Kay's future economic damages in the form of future loss of earnings.*fn1 Plaintiffs resist this motion.
A. Standard for Admissibility of Expert Testimony
The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.*fn2 District courts have discretion in determining whether to admit expert witness testimony under Rule 702. See In re Air Crash at Little Rock Arkansas, on June 1, 1999, 291 F.3d 503, 509 (8th Cir. 2002). The proponent of expert testimony must prove its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 n.10, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2796, 125 L.Ed. 2d 469 (1993).
Under Rule 702, the trial judge acts as a "gatekeeper" screening evidence for relevance and reliability. Id. at 589, 113 S.Ct. at 2795. "Rule 702 reflects an attempt to liberalize the rules governing the admission of expert testimony. The rule clearly is one of admissibility rather than exclusion." Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 270 F.3d 681, 686 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted). "The exclusion of an expert's opinion is proper only if it is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury." Wood v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 112 F.3d 306, 309 (8th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a district court should apply a three-part test when screening testimony under Rule 702.
First, evidence based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge must be useful to the finder of fact in deciding the ultimate issue of fact. This is the basic rule of relevancy. Second, the proposed witness must be qualified to assist the finder of fact. Third, the proposed evidence must be reliable or trustworthy in an evidentiary sense, so that, if the finder of fact accepts it as true, it provides the assistance the finder of fact requires.
Lauzon, 270 F.3d at 686 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The third part of the test pertains to three elements added to Rule 702 after Daubertand its progeny. Id. These include that "(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has ...