Expert Witness Blog
Summary: Statistics Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the defendant argued that they have not been able to replicate the expert’s analysis.
Facts: This case (Stewart v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Southern District of California – October 5, 2022) involves two class action claims. The plaintiffs, Pamela Stewart and Zulekha Abdul allege that the defendant, Quest Diagnostic Clinical Laboratories, impeded its Patient Service Representatives (“PSR”) from getting rest periods. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that Black PSRs are underpaid and underpromoted compared to white PSRs. To assist in their case, the plaintiffs hired Statistics Expert Witness David Neumark to provide expert witness testimony. The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
Discussion: Quest argued that Neumark’s expert witness testimony is not a true promotions analysis which does not bring forth whether Black PSRs are promoted slower than White PSRs. In addition, Quest argued that Neumark’s declaration should be excluded because their experts have been unable to replicate Neumark’s analysis. Also, the defendant says that Neumark’s analysis of education levels for phlebotomists is not useful to the court.
The court opined that Quest’s critiques about Neumark’s promotions analysis goes to the weight of the evidence and not the admissibility. The court notes that Quest will be free to cross-examine and attack Neumark’s analysis during that part of the proceedings.
Also, the court notes that Quest’s objection to Neumark utilizing 1.65 standard deviations also goes to the weight of the testimony and not the admissibility. Quest will be able to attack Neumark’s expert testimony about his statistical significance opinions and the comparison of other similar opinions that he has offered in other cases.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness opinions of David Neumark is denied.