MCATEER
v.
CIARDI CIARDI & ASTIN, P.C.

S.D. Fla. | 2019-09-16
No. 9:18-cv-81264
280 F.R.D. 653 District Court, S.D. Florida (2019) Positive Treatment
Cited by 53 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court denied defendants' Daubert motions to exclude expert testimony, finding the experts qualified and their methodologies sufficiently reliable.

Facts & Procedural History

Defendants filed Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of two expert witnesses, Robert Hackleman and Robert Banting. The plaintiffs responded to th…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Gatekeeping Role Of District Courts Expert Witness Qualification Daubert Standard Expert Testimony Admissibility

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gatekeeping Role Of District Courts cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ DAUBERT MOTIONS

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Amended Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Robert Hackleman, and in the Alternative, Motion in Limine [DE 65] and on Defendants’ Amended Daubert Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Robert Banting [DE 66]. The Court has carefully considered the Motions, Plaintiffs’ Responses thereto [DE 69 and 70], Defendants’ Replies [DE 73 and 75], and the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The proponent of expert testimony “must demonstrate that the witness is qualified to testify competently, that his opinions are based on sound methodology, and that his testimony will be helpful to the trier of fact.” Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cty., 402 F. 3d 1092, 1107 (11th Cir. 2005).

While a district court serves as a gatekeeper to the admissibility of expert testimony, credibility and persuasiveness are reserved for the jury. Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F. 3d 1333, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). “Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993).

First, upon review of their backgrounds, experience, and qualifications, the Court concludes that Attorney Hackleman and Mr. Banting are qualified to testify competently in their respective areas of testimony. See Clena Invs., Inc. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 280 F.R.D. 653, 661 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (stating that inquiry into a witness’s qualifications is “not stringent” and that, “so long as the expert is minimally qualified, objections to the level of the expert’s expertise go to credibility and weight, not admissibility” (alteration and quotation marks omitted)).

Second, upon review of their experience, the subject matter of the testimony, and the rules and standards at issue, the Court concludes that Attorney Hackleman’s and Mr. Banting’s opinions in their non-scientific areas of testimony are based on sufficiently reliable methodology. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999) (stating that the relevant reliability concerns may focus on personal knowledge and experience in cases involving non-scientific issues).

Finally, Defendants do not challenge the witnesses’ testimony as unhelpful to a jury.

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Defendants’ Amended Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Robert Hackleman, and in the Alternative, Motion in Limine [DE 65] is DENIED. However, as discussed during the Status Conference on September 12, 2019, Attorney Hackleman is not permitted to opine based on his own best practices. 2. Defendants’ Amended Daubert Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Robert Banting [DE 66] is DENIED.

3. Defendants’ Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Robert Hackleman, and in the Alternative, Motion in Limine [DE 53] is DENIED AS MOOT. 4. Defendants’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Robert Banting [DE 60] is DENIED AS MOOT. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, West Palm Beach, Florida, this 16th day of September, 2019. oT f sob. A. Fee abet

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG U

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (51 total)

  • McAteer v. Ciardi Ciardi & Astin, P.C., 280 F.R.D. 653 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
    …of their backgrounds, experience, and qualifications, the Court concludes that Attorney Hackleman and Mr. Banting are qualified to testify competently in their respective areas of testimony. See Clena Invs., Inc. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 280 F.R.D. 653, 661 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (stating that inquiry into a witness’s qualifications is “not stringent” and that, “so long as the expert is minimally qualified, objections to the level of the expert’s expertise go to credibility and weight, not admissibility…
  • Solomon v. AIG Prop. Cas. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …etermining whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert ‘requires the trial court to examine the credentials of the proposed expert in light of the subject 6 matter of the proposed testimony.’” Clena Invs., Inc. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 280 F.R.D. 653, 661 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (citation omitted). “This inquiry is not stringent, and so long as the expert is minimally qualified, objections to the level of the expert's expertise [go] to credibility and weight, not admissibility.” Id. (citations and int…
  • Sihler v. Global e-Trading, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …. “Determining whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert 'requires the trial court to examine the credentials of the proposed expert in light of the subject matter of the proposed testimony.’” Clena Invs., Inc. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 280 F.R.D. 653, 661 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (quoting Jack v. Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., 239 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1314-16 (N.D. Ga. 2002)). “This inquiry is not stringent, and so long as the expert is minimally qualified, objections to the level of the expert's expertise [go] to…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 51 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw