Motorola, Inc. v. Murray

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Tab Group

U.S. Chamber's Position

In the coalition brief, the Chamber asked the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to review the trial court’s judgment in order to determine whether District of Columbia judges should have the same gatekeeping authority as that exercised by justices in federal and state courts across the country by adopting Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard (or an equivalent state law standard) for determining the admissibility of expert testimony. The brief argues that without the protections provided by Daubert, businesses are subject to the risk of prolonged litigation and large damage awards based upon nothing more than the word of an expert witness. The brief points out that the current inability of District of Columbia courts to serve as gatekeepers against scientifically unreliable testimony places DC businesses at a significant disadvantage in comparison with those located in the vast majority of states that have adopted Daubert. 

The Chamber filed the brief jointly with the International Association of Defense Counsel, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Federation of Independent Business.

Joe G. Hollingsworth and Eric G. Lasker of Hollingsworth LLP represented the U.S. Chamber as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center. 

Procedural History

Petition filed 10/15/2014.

U.S. Chamber amicus brief filed 10/24/2014.

U.S. Chamber amicus brief on the merits filed 2/23/2015.  

Argued 11/24/2015.

Decided 10/20/2016.