The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
KEVIN J. HOLM,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 2:22-cv-424-JES-NPM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Daubert
Motion (Doc. #31) filed on September 26, 2023 and plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition (Doc. #34) filed on November 1, 2023.
The Motion refers to itself as “premature . . . given the
record” and hints that it was filed simply to comply with the
Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order. (Doc. #31, p. 2.) In
the Motion’s 3.01(g) certification, the parties assured the Court
they conferred prior to filing the Motion and that “[w]hile the
parties disagree on the ultimate outcome of the Motion, they were
able to agree on nonopposition [sic] for deferring the issue to
trial—if the Court is inclined to do so . . . .” (Id. at p. 20.)
In Daubert motions, the courts exercise a gatekeeping
function and that “gatekeeping function’s core use is to keep
junk science away from the jury.” United States v. Ware, 69
F.4th 830, 847 (11th Cir. 2023). In bench trials such as this,
“[t]here is less need for the gatekeeper to keep the gate when
the gatekeeper is keeping the gate only for himself.” United
States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005). As a
result, this Court has stated that “[w]here a trial judge
conducts a bench trial, the judge need not conduct a Daubert
(or Rule 702) analysis before presentation of the evidence,”
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Liebowitz, No. 2:20-CV-276-JES-MRM, 2021
WL 4244210, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2021), and has denied
similar motions without prejudice, leaving objections to
testimony to be better dealt at the bench trial. See Casequin
v. CAT 5 Contracting, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-588-JES-MRM, 2022 WL
409273, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2022).1 This case merits no
differential treatment. The Motion will be denied without
prejudice and any objections to testimony will be ruled on at
the bench trial.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1 Importantly, the Eleventh Circuit has recognized district
courts are afforded great flexibility and deference in Daubert
determinations, especially in how they “manage their dockets and
counsels’ time to provide the most efficient and just resolution
of the issues.” Ware, 69 F.4th at 846. So too has the court said
that no categorical rule or caselaw prevents contested Daubert
evidence from being presented before a ruling on its admissibility.
United States v. Esformes, 60 F.4th 621, 636 (11th Cir. 2023),
cert. denied, No. 23-95, 2023 WL 8531890 (U.S. Dec. 11, 2023).
Defendant's Daubert Motion (Doc. #31) is DENIED without
prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 2nd day of
January, 2024.
E tkiok
JGH = STEELE x
SHYICR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies:
Counsel of Record