United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
STARRETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court previously discussed the facts of this case.
See Memorandum Opinion and Order, EEOC v. Wesley
Health Sys., LLC, No. 2:17-CV-126-KS-MTP (S.D.Miss. Nov.
14, 2018), ECF No. 97. Defendant filed a Motion to Exclude
 the testimony of Plaintiff's vocational expert, Trey
Moseley. For the reasons provided below, the Court
denies the motion.
Rule of Evidence 702 provides:
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
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702. Therefore, “when expert testimony is
offered, the trial judge must perform a screening function to
ensure that the expert's opinion is reliable and relevant
to the facts at issue in the case.” Watkins v.
Telsmith, Inc., 121 F.3d 984, 988-89 (5th Cir. 1997). In
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579,
113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Supreme Court
provided a nonexclusive list of “general observations
intended to guide a district court's evaluation of
scientific evidence . . . .” Id. at 989.
Not every guidepost outlined in Daubert will
necessarily apply to expert testimony [in every case], but
the district court's preliminary assessment of whether
the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is
scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or
methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue is
no less important.
Id. at 990-91.
testimony must be supported by “more than subjective
belief or unsupported speculation.” Paz v. Brush
Engineered Materials, Inc., 555 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.
2009). It “must be reliable at each and every step or
it is inadmissible. The reliability analysis applies to all
aspects of an expert's testimony: the methodology, the
facts underlying the expert's opinion, the link between
the facts and the conclusion, et
alia.” Seaman v. Seacor Marine LLC,
326 Fed.Appx. 721, 725 (5th Cir. 2009). “Overall, the
trial court must strive to ensure that the expert, whether
basing testimony on professional studies or personal
experience, employs in the courthouse the same level of
intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an
expert in the relevant field.” United States v.
Valencia, 600 F.3d 389, 424 (5th Cir. 2010).
Court's role as gatekeeper is not meant to supplant the
adversary system because “[v]igorous 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, 509 U.S. at 596. While the Court should
focus solely on the proposed expert's “principles
and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate,
” id. at 595, “nothing in either
Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a
district court to admit opinion evidence which is connected
to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the
expert.” GE v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146, 118
S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997)).
summary, the proponent of expert testimony must demonstrate
that the proposed expert is qualified as an expert, that the
testimony is reliable, and that it is relevant to a question
of fact before the jury. United States v. Hicks, 389
F.3d 514, 525 (5th Cir. 2004). The proponent must prove these
requirements by a ...