In this third case in the Daubert Trilogy, again the Supreme Court tried to clarify admissibility issues brought up because of fallout from Daubert. The Kumho court held that the Daubert “gatekeeping” factors apply not only to scientific testimony but to all expert testimony. The court said that Rule 702 does not distinguish between scientific knowledge and technical knowledge factors may apply to the testimony of engineers and other expert who are not scientists. The court also stated that the considerations expressed in the Daubert ruling do not constitute a “checklist” for determining admissibility and that Rule 702 is a flexible rule. Daubert only offered a trial judge a list of things they might consider when trying to determine if the proffered testimony is reliable.
The “Daubert Prongs” are not accepted in all states but variations of the “prongs” are used in some states under different case names. Basically, any motion in limine that seeks to preclude an expert from testifying based on their expertise and/or the reliability of the evidence/testimony being proffered could be considered a “Daubert-style hearing”.