| James Langenfeld, Chris Alexander
Private Enforcement
This paper examines the affect of Daubert v. Merell Dow Pharms and related gatekeeping decisions on expert testimony, particularly on economic testimony in antitrust cases. An analysis of Daubert motions on economic testimony suggests that Daubert may have created additional barriers to plaintiff antitrust cases, and may act to discourage well qualified economists from taking these cases. We find that economists may be more likely to be successfully challenged than other types of experts, and economists are most frequently challenged when providing testimony in antitrust cases. These results suggest further research should be done to determine if there is an actual bias in the application of Daubert, and if so, what actions could be taken to adjust this imbalance.
