MAJOR NEW DECISION ON CRITERIA FOR EXCLUSION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY

LOCKHEED LITIGATION CASES (Court of Appeal Case Number B166347)

On January 31, 2005, the Court of Appeal issued an important published opinion confirming the discretion that trial judges have under California law to exclude expert testimony that lacks an adequate foundation and offering a detailed discussion of the type of analysis trial courts should undertake in examining the foundation for expert testimony under Evidence Code section 801. A link to the opinion can be found here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B166347.PDF (or click here)

The Lockheed Litigation Cases involve mass toxic tort litigation arising from injuries allegedly suffered by some 640 plaintiffs following exposure to a variety of organic solvents. In the case before the court, involving retrial of 24 of the 640 plaintiffs' claims, the trial court excluded the testimony of plaintiffs' sole causation expert on grounds that there was no adequate foundation for the expert's opinion, and then granted summary judgment for the defendants. (In an earlier trial, many of these same plaintiffs had been awarded both compensatory damages and a share of a $760,000,000 punitive damage award. In a prior opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed the punitive damage award with directions to enter judgment for the defendants and remanded the case for retrial on liability and compensatory damages.) In affirming the trial court's exclusion of the expert testimony, the Court of Appeal explained that "[a trial] court determining whether there is a reasonable basis for an expert opinion under Evidence Code section 801, subdivision (b), must examine the matter that the expert relied on in his forming his or her opinion. This limited analysis involves reviewing the matter relied on and understanding the matter to the extent necessary to determine whether it can provide a reasonable basis (“reasonably may be relied upon” (Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (b))) for the expert’s opinion. A court conducting this analysis must not weigh the probative value of the opinion, substitute its own opinion for the expert’s opinion, or presume to be an expert. Rather, the analysis is limited to determining whether the matter relied on can provide a reasonable basis for the opinion or, on the other hand, reveals that the opinion is based on a leap of logic, conjecture, or artifice." (Typed opn., p. 13.)

Horvitz & Levy LLP represented the prevailing defendants, ExxonMobil Corporation and Union Oil Company of California, in this case. For more information on this decision, contact Mary Christine Sungaila at msungaila@horvitzlevy.com or David Axelrad at daxelrad@horvitzlevy.com, or by telephone at (818) 995-0800.

www.horvitzlevy.com

If you do not wish to continue to receive these informational bulletins, please e-mail jpaul@horvitzlevy.com with a subject line "UNSUBSCRIBE."