District court improperly excluded expert witness testimony because defendant’s Rule 16 disclosure did not explain witness’s methodology

EVIDENCE United States v. Nacchio, No. 07-1311, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008)(Colorado). Appeal of convictions for insider trading in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j, 78ff, and 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, and 240.10b5-1. HELD: (1) District court abused discretion by excluding defendant’s expert witness because defendant’s witness disclosure under Rule 16 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure did not provide full explanation of witness’s methodology sufficient to satisfy Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). A Rule 16 disclosure need not provide a full explanation of the witness's methodology, so it is wrong to demand that such a disclosure satisfy Daubert. (2) It is abuse of discretion to exclude expert witness because his methodology is unreliable without allowing proponent to present any evidence of what methodology would be. Proponent bears burden of establishing admissibility of evidence under Rule 702 of Federal Rules of Evidence, but must be given opportunity to do so before testimony may be ruled inadmissible. Read the opinion here.