Court Error – Abuse of Discretion

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Charles Krik v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.

Case No.: 15-3112

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Court Error – Abuse of Discretion

On appeal, we review a district court’s decision to deny a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Lawrence, 788 F.3d 234, 244 (7th Cir. 2015). Whether the district court applied the Daubert framework properly is a question we review de novo but we review the decision to exclude or admit the expert witness testimony for an abuse of discretion only. C.W. ex rel. Wood v. Textron, Inc., 807 F.3d 827, 835 (7th Cir. 2015). The party seeking to introduce the expert wit‐ ness testimony bears the burden of demonstrating that the ex‐ pert witness testimony satisfies the standard by a preponderance of the evidence. Lewis v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 561 F.3d 698, 705 (7th Cir. 2009).

Krik does not dispute that the district court identified and applied the appropriate Daubert framework, rather, he argues that Judge Shah made an errant factual determination that the cumulative exposure theory was the same as the “each and every exposure” theory that Judge Lee had barred. We therefore review this decision and the decision to exclude the cumulative exposure‐based testimony for an abuse of discretion. Judge Shah found that the cumulative exposure theory was the same as the “each and every exposure” theory and prohibited testimony based on this theory and the reasoning of Judge Lee supplemented by his own analysis. We agree and therefore conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude the testimony nor to deny the motion for a new trial.

Krik’s proffered expert testimony on causation did not meet the standards required under Federal Rule 702 and Daubert and without it his case was fatally weak. Krik, 2015 WL 5050413 at *4 (J. Shah). Krik was not prejudiced by Mobil’s investigation because judgment in favor of the defendants was inevitable once it became clear that Krik could not prove causation. The Appellee’s Motions to Strike Appellant’s Letter of Supplemental Authority is denied. The decision of the district court is affirmed in all respects, including the assignment of costs and fees.

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.