Evidence – Experts – Bench trial

Listen to this article

Where three motions to exclude expert testimony have been filed in advance of a bench trial, all three experts should be heard at trial so that a decision made can be made on a fuller record whether to admit any opinions and whether to credit any portion of their testimony.

“Attorney General Andrea Campbell alleges in this case that by classifying their drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, Uber Technologies, Inc. (‘Uber’) and Lyft, Inc. (‘Lyft’) each deprive the drivers of their rights under the Massachusetts wage and hour laws in violation of G.L.c. 149, §§148-150, and G.L.c. 151, §§1 and 1A. She seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. The case is before me on three motions to exclude expert testimony in advance of a bench trial scheduled to start in a week. For the following reasons, the motions are denied. …

“In the motions before me, the parties seek to exclude the testimony of three experts, disputing either the reliability of the expert’s methodology and/or the background and expertise of the witness to offer the particular opinions. …

“Each of the three challenged experts are expert in their field. Each of them would opine on issues material to the case, and, as I understand it, would offer opinions that would not be unduly repetitive. In determining admissibility, including analyzing the reliability of the challenged expert testimony (and in certain regards the expertise of the individuals to offer particular opinions), the court would benefit from an evidentiary hearing, especially if the case was to be tried to a jury. Here, however, as this will be a bench trial, the same concerns are not present. Rather than delay or suspend the trial at some point to discharge my gatekeeping function as I would with a jury, I will hear all three experts at trial and decide on a fuller record whether to admit any opinions and, of course, whether to credit any portion of their testimony. Specifically, as to each of these prospective expert witnesses, I will hear testimony about the witness’ background and expertise in the relevant field, and the witness’ methodology, before deciding whether the individual will be allowed to offer an expert opinion. Depending on the parties’ positions, I may permit cross-examination regarding a proffered expert witness’ expertise and methodology before permitting the expert to offer opinions on direct examination.”

Campbell v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-069-24) (10 pages) (Krupp, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Civil No. 20-1519-BLS1) (May 3, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.