Daubert Challenge Study

"The Most Authoritative Report on an Expert's Prior Challenges, Prepared
On-Demand by our Legal Team for only $99."

^{Order Challenge Study   View Sample Report}

Has your opponent's expert been challenged? Has yours?

An expert's prior history of being challenged, excluded and critiqued by the court is a critical aspect of your expert investigation. Our Daubert Challenge Study provides you with authoritative results of an expert's challenge history. 

Not a Canned Report - Prepared On-Demand

Our legal team has more than 15 years of investigative experience in gatekeeping cases. Numerous external databases (outside of TrialSmith) will be deployed to create your report.   

Essential Expert Witness Due Diligence 

Our legal team will scan and document all of the following types of issues within your expert:

• The expert was deemed not qualified (unqualified).
• The expert's methods were questionable, suspicious, not valid (invalid), lacking or inadequate.
• The expert was not credible (incredible) or believable (unbelievable).
• The testimony was outside the scope of the expertise of the expert.
• The testimony was not relevant (irrelevant).
• The testimony was not reliable (unreliable).
• The testimony was flawed.
• The expert's methods were not scientific (unscientific).
• The testimony was speculative.
• The expert was deemed not competent, incompetent. The testimony was questionable.
• The testimony was predicated on an improper (or was lacking) foundation, basis or grounds.
• The testimony was based on insufficient evidence, false assumptions or evidence not in the record.
• The expert drew conclusions not supported by the evidence.
• The testimony of the expert was impeached.
• The testimony was based on methods which were unscientific (not scientific, junk science).
• The testimony would not assist the trier of fact.
• The testimony was, amounted to or drew a legal conclusion.
• The testimony was used to support a motion for summary judgment and the motion was granted/ denied.
• There were two conflicting expert testimonies and the case was decided in the favor of one party (thereby implying that one expert's testimony was given more weight than another's).
• The testimony or opinion was conclusory.

• Any other assessment of the expert or his/her testimony which reflects on or affects the assessment of the overall qualifications and credibility of the expert – either in a good or a bad way, particularly critical comments of any kind by the judge who wrote the opinion (even if there was no formal attempt to exclude or limit the testimony of the expert on the part of one of the attorneys.

Want a Comprehensive Expert Investigation? We Have It!

Order TrialSmith's Expert Knowledge Map for $495, and our lawyers will compile not only a Daubert Challenge Study, but also a more comprehensive background report on any expert. (Learn More)

^{Order Challenge Study   View Sample Report}