United States District Court, D. Delaware
before me is Defendant Hospira, Inc.'s Motion for Summary
Judgment (D.I. 196); Plaintiffs Amgen Inc. and Amgen
Manufacturing, Limited's Motion to Exclude Testimony of
Dr. Gregory K. Bell (D.I. 204); and Defendant Hospira,
Inc.'s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Randal Heeb,
Ph.D. (D.I. 202). I have considered the parties'
briefing. (D.I. 197; D.I. 227; D.I. 242; D.I. 206; D.I. 223;
D.I. 244; D.I. 203; D.I. 225; D.I. 246). I held oral argument
on June 28, 2017.
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.
R. Crv. P. 56(a). The moving party has the initial burden of
proving the absence of a genuinely disputed material fact
relative to the claims in question. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). Material facts are
those "that could affect the outcome" of the
proceeding, and "a dispute about a material fact is
'genuine' if the evidence is sufficient to permit a
reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving
party." Lamont v. New Jersey, 637 F.3d 177, 181
(3d Cir. 2011). The burden on the moving party may be
discharged by pointing out to the district court that there
is an absence of evidence supporting the non-moving
party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
burden then shifts to the non-movant to demonstrate the
existence of a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87
(1986); Williams v. Borough of West Chester, Pa.,
891 F.2d 458, 460-61 (3d Cir. 1989). A non-moving party
asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed must support such
an assertion by: "(A) citing to particular parts of
materials in the record, including depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations .. ., admissions, interrogatory
answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the
materials cited [by the opposing party] do not establish the
absence ... of a genuine dispute ...." Fed. R. Crv. P.
determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists,
the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in
that party's favor. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 380 (2007); Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180,
184 (3d Cir. 2007). A dispute is "genuine" only if
the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 247-49. If the non-moving party fails to make a sufficient
showing on an essential element of its case with respect to
which it has the burden of proof, the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex
Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702
Rule of Evidence 702 sets out the requirements for expert
witness testimony, stating that:
A 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: (a) the expert's scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier
of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or
data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles
and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702. The Third Circuit has explained:
Rule 702 embodies a trilogy of restrictions on expert
testimony: qualification, reliability and fit. Qualification
refers to the requirement that the witness possess
specialized expertise. We have interpreted this requirement
liberally, holding that "a broad range of knowledge,
skills, and training qualify an expert." Secondly, the
testimony must be reliable; it "must be based on the
'methods and procedures of science' rather than on
'subjective belief or unsupported speculation'; the
expert must have 'good grounds' for his o[r] her
belief. In sum, Daubert holds that an inquiry into
the reliability of scientific evidence under Rule 702
requires a determination as to its scientific validity."
Finally, Rule 702 requires that the expert testimony must fit
the issues in the case. In other words, the expert's
testimony must be relevant for the purposes of the case and
must assist the trier of fact. The Supreme Court explained in
Daubert that "Rule 702's
'helpfulness' standard requires a valid scientific
connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to
admissibility." By means of a so-called
"Daubert hearing, " the district court
acts as a gatekeeper, preventing opinion testimony that does
not meet the requirements of qualification, reliability and
fit from reaching the jury. See Daubert ("Faced
with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, then, the
trial judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule
104(a) [of the Federal Rules of Evidence] whether the expert
is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2)
will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a
fact in issue.").
Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320
F.3d 396, 404-05 (3d Cir. 2003) (footnote and internal
citations omitted). The proponent of expert testimony must
"demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the
[expert's] opinions are reliable." In re Paoli
R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 744 (3d Cir. 1994).