The opinions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., General Electric Co. v. Robert K. Joiner, Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, and Weisgram v. Marley changed the ground rules for whether a survey is admissible as evidence into a trial. This article provides a history of the criteria used to determine the admissibility of expert reports before Daubert and summarizes Daubert and the three other relevant opinions. It provides examples of how the Daubert criteria are being applied in cases involving survey research and provides recommendations for conducting surveys that are likely to survive a Daubert challenge.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albert v. Warner-Lambert Company (2002), 234 F.Supp. 2d 101.
2.
AndrewsJ. Craig and MaronickThomas J. (1995), “Advertising Research Issues from FTC Versus Stouffer Foods Corporation,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14 (Fall), 301–309.
3.
Bacardi v. New York Lighter (2000), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3547.
4.
Castrol v. Pennzoil (2000), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15336.
5.
ChengEdward K. and YoonAlbert (2005), “Does Frye or Daubert Matter? A Study of Scientific Admissibility Standards,”Virginia Law Review, 91 (2), 471–513.
6.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993), 113 S.Ct. 2786.
7.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1995), 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir.).
8.
DellettStephen D. (2000), “Challenging the Reliability of Experts in Intellectual Property Cases,”Texas Intellectual Property Journal, 1 (Fall), 1–18.
9.
DiamondShari (1994), “Reference Guide for Survey Research,” in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Law Center.
10.
DiamondShari (2000), “Reference Guide for Survey Research,” in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2d ed. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Law Center.
11.
DixonLloyd and GillBrian (2001), Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute for Civil Justice.
12.
EpsteinLee and KingGary (2002), “Exchange: Empirical Research and the Goals of Legal Scholarship. The Rules of Inference,”University of Chicago Law Review, 69 (1), 1–133.
13.
FaigmanDavid L. (1995), “The Evidentiary Status of Social Science Under Daubert: Is It ‘Scientific,’ ‘Technical,’ or ‘Other’ Knowledge?”Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1 (December), 960–79.
14.
FaigmanDavid L., KayeDavid H., SaksMichael J., and SandersJoseph (2002), “Admissibility of Scientific Evidence,” in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, Ch. 1, Vol. 1, FaigmanDavid L., KayeDavid H., SaksMichael J., and SandersJoseph, eds. St. Paul: West Publishing, 1–68.
15.
Federal Judicial Law Center (2004), The Manual for Complex Litigation, 4th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16.
Frye v. United States (1927), 54 App. D.C., at 47, 293 F., at 1014.
17.
GatowskiSophia I., DobbinShirley A., RichardsonJames T., GinsbergGerald P., MerlinoMara L., and DahirVeronica (2001), “Asking the Gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in a Post-Daubert World,”Law and Human Behavior, 25 (5), 433–58.
18.
General Electric Co. v. Robert K. Joiner (1997), 522 U.S. 136.
19.
Giant Brands Inc. and Giant of Maryland LLC v. Giant Eagle Inc. and Phoenix Intangibles Holding Co. (2002), 228 F.Supp. 2d 646.
20.
Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars LP (2004), 325 F.Supp. 2d 841.
21.
Group Health Plan v. Philip Morris Inc. (2002), 188 F.Supp. 2d 1122.
22.
HaackSusan (2001), “An Epistemologist in the Bramble-Bush: At the Supreme Court with Mr. Joiner,”Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 26 (2), 217–48.
23.
HastakManoj, MazisMichael B., and MorrisLouis A. (2001), “The Role of Consumer Surveys in Public Policy Decision Making,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20 (Fall), 170–85.
24.
HulkaBarbara S., KerkvlietNancy L., and TugwellPeter (2000), “Experiences of a Scientific Panel Formed to Advise the Federal Judiciary on Silicone Breast Implants,”New England Journal of Medicine, 342 (11), 812–15.
25.
The Intimate Bookshop Inc. v. Barnes & Noble Inc. et al. (2003), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17231.
26.
J&J Snack Foods Corp. v. The Earthgrains Co. (2002), 220 F.Supp. 2d 358.
27.
JacobyJacob (2002), “Experimental Design and the Selection of Controls in Trademark and Deceptive Advertising Studies,”Trademark Reporter, 92 (4), 890–956.
28.
KeeterScott, MillerCarolyn, KohutAndrew, GrovesRobert M., and PresserStanley (2000), “Consequences of Reducing Nonresponse in a National Telephone Survey,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 64 (Summer), 125–48.
29.
KP Permanent Make-Up Inc. v. Lasting Impression I Inc. (2004), U.S. 03-409.
30.
Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999), 526 U.S. 137.
31.
Lanphere Enterprises Inc. v. Jiffy Lube International Inc. (2003), CV 01-1168-BR.
32.
The Learning Network v. Discovery Communications (2001), 11 Fed. Appx. 297.
LeightonRichard J. (2002), “Using Daubert-Kumho Gatekeeping to Admit and Exclude Surveys in Lanham Act Advertising and Trademark Cases,”Trademark Reporter, 92 (4), 743–93.
35.
LiptonJack P. (1999), “The Use and Acceptance of Social Science Evidence in Business Litigation after Daubert,”Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5 (1), 59–77.
MaronickThomas (1991), “Copy Tests in FTC Deception Cases: Guidelines for Researchers,”Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (6), 9–17.
38.
MasterCard International Inc. v. First National Bank of Omaha Inc. (2004), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2485.
39.
Mead Johnson v. Abbott Laboratories (2000), 201 F.Supp. 3d 883.
40.
Menasha Corporation v. New America Marketing In-Store Inc. (2003), 238 F.Supp. 2d 1024.
41.
Millennium Import Company v. Sidney Frank Importing Company (2004), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11871.
42.
National Football League Properties Inc. v. Prostyle Inc. (1999), “Opinion Order,” 57 F.Supp. 665.
43.
Newport Electronics Inc. v. Newport Corporation (2001), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14380.
44.
PalladinoVincent N. (1983), “Techniques for Ascertaining if There Is Secondary Meaning,”Trademark Reporter, 73 (2), 391–427.
45.
PalladinoVincent N. (1994), “Surveying Secondary Meaning,”Trademark Reporter, 84 (1), 155–85.
46.
Pew Research Center (2004), “Survey Experiment Show Polls Face Growing Resistance But Still Representative,” research report, (accessed August 12, 2005), [available at http://peoplepress.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=813].
47.
Pharmacia Corp. v. Alcon Laboratories Inc. (2002), F.Supp. 2d 335.
48.
Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Excite Inc. (2000), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13418.
49.
Playtex Products Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Company (2003), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8913.
50.
RatliffAlan (2000), “Kumho Wrestling: Are Your Intellectual Property Experts in Shape?”The Trial Lawyer: Journal of Strategy, Technique and Case Management, 23, 457–70.
51.
RenakerTeresa S. (1996), “Evidentiary Legerdemain: Deciding When Daubert Should Apply to Social Science Evidence,”California Law Review, 84 (December), 1657–92.
52.
RussoJay, MetcalfBarbara, and StephensDeborah (1981), “Identifying Misleading Advertising,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (September), 170–81.
53.
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Menard Inc. (2003), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 951.
54.
Simon Property Group v. mySimon Inc. (2000), 104 F.Supp. 2d 1033.
55.
Starter Corporation v. Converse Inc. (1999), 170 F.3d 286.
56.
TamarelliAlanJr.1994), “Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: Pushing the Limits of Scientific Reliability—The Questionable Wisdom of Abandoning the Peer Review Standard for the Admissibility of Expert Testimony,”Vanderbilt Law Review, 47 (May), 1175–1203.
57.
Trouble v. The Wet Seal Inc. (2001), 99 CV. 10997 (VM).
58.
TuckelPeter and O'NeillHarry (2002), “The Vanishing Respondent in Telephone Surveys,”Journal of Advertising Research, 42 (5), 26–48.
59.
Tunnell v. Ford Motor Company (2004), 330 F.Supp. 2d 707.
U.S. Code (2004), “Federal Rules of Evidence: Article VII: Opinions and Expert Testimony,” Federal Rules Evidence Rule 702, (accessed August 15, 2005), [available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title28a/28a_5_7_.html].
62.
U.S. Code (2005), Commentary by Saltzburg, Capra, and Martin on the Federal Rules of Evidence, (accessed July 2005), [available at lexis-nexis.com].
63.
Utah Medical Products v. Clinical Innovations Associates Inc. (1999), 79 F.Supp 2d 1290.
64.
Weisgram v. Marley (2000), 120 S.Ct. 1011.
65.
Wells Fargo and Co. et al. v. WhenU.com Inc. (2003), 293 F.Supp. 2d 734.
66.
White v. Financial Credit Corporation (2001), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21486.
