United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. REEVES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is pending for consideration of Defendant
Breeders9; Cup, Limited9;s (“Breeders9;
Cup”) motion to exclude Plaintiff Class Racing Stable,
LLC9;s (“Class Racing”) expert witnesses
[Record No. 74] and motion for summary judgment [Record No.
75]. The defendant9;s motions will be granted for the
reasons outlined below.
Court has discussed previously, this case arises out of
events surrounding the 2015 Breeders9; Cup. Class Racing
brought suit against Breeders9; Cup in the Fayette Circuit
Court under various theories of negligence, detrimental
reliance, and misrepresentation. [Record No. 1-1] The action
was later removed to this Court. [Record No. 1] Class
Racing9;s misrepresentation and construed promissory
estoppel claims were dismissed on February 10, 2017. [Record
No. 9] As a result, Class Racing was limited to a negligence
claim for damages for the amount that Holy Lute9;s value
would have increased had he simply run in the Turf Sprint.
Id. at p. 4-5.
Cup filed the present motions, alleging that Class
Racing9;s proposed expert witnesses, Thomas Clark and
Steve Pollack, should be excluded. [Record No. 74]
Additionally, it contends that summary judgment is
appropriate because Class Racing cannot prove with reasonable
certainty that damages resulted from its alleged negligence.
[Record No. 75]
challenge to expert testimony must begin with Rule 702 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence which was modified in December 2000
to reflect the Supreme Court9;s holdings in
Daubert and Kumho
Tire. Rule 702 states:
witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if:
expert9;s scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods;
expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the
facts of the case.
for an expert's opinion to be admissible, it must satisfy
three requirements. “First, the witness must be
qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education. Second, the testimony must be relevant, meaning
that it will assist t he t rier of fact to understa nd the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Third, the
testimony must be reliable.” In re ScrapMetal Antitrust Litigation, 527 F.3d 517, 529-30
(6th Cir. 2006). When a party's expert witness is
challenged, the Court assumes 1the role of a gatekeeper to
determine whether the proposed testimony may be presented to
the fact-finder. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 587; see
also In re Scrap Metal, 527 F.3d at 528 (noting that
“[i]n Daubert the Court charged trial judges
with the responsibility ...