Daubert and Robinson Standards
The Texas framework for judicial gatekeeping of expert witness reliability. The Texas Supreme Court adopted the Daubert framework in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995), articulating six non-exclusive factors for evaluating the reliability of scientific expert testimony. Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998), extended reliability gatekeeping to all expert testimony, including non-scientific opinion, through the "analytical gap" test.
The Daubert and Robinson standards together establish the Texas framework for judicial gatekeeping of expert witness reliability. The Texas Supreme Court adopted the federal Daubert framework in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995), and elaborated it through six non-exclusive factors evaluating the reliability of scientific expert testimony. Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998), extended reliability gatekeeping to all expert testimony, including non-scientific or experience-based opinion, through the "analytical gap" test.
The six Robinson factors
Section 702 of the Texas Rules of Evidence permits expert testimony only where it will assist the trier of fact and the witness is qualified. Robinson articulates six non-exclusive factors for evaluating the reliability of scientific expert testimony: (1) the extent to which the underlying theory has been or can be tested; (2) the extent to which the technique relies on the subjective interpretation of the expert; (3) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (4) the technique's potential rate of error; (5) whether the underlying theory or technique has been generally accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community; and (6) the non-judicial uses to which the technique has been put. No single factor is dispositive; the trial court applies them flexibly.
Gammill and the analytical gap test
Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998), extended Robinson's reliability gatekeeping to non-scientific expert testimony, experience-based opinion in fields like accident reconstruction, business valuation, and various engineering disciplines. Where the Robinson factors don't fit (because the testimony isn't subject to scientific testing in the traditional sense), Texas courts apply the "analytical gap" test: (1) is the field a legitimate field of expertise; (2) does the testimony fall within the scope of the field; and (3) does the testimony properly rely on the principles of the field rather than relying on the bare assertion of the expert. The analytical gap is the disconnect between the data and the conclusion, courts exclude opinions where the gap is too wide.
Procedural mechanics, the Daubert challenge
Reliability challenges to expert testimony are typically raised pretrial through motion to exclude (sometimes called a "Daubert motion" or "Robinson motion"). The proper procedure: (1) timely written objection identifying the specific reliability concerns; (2) motion to exclude with supporting evidence; (3) hearing, the trial court has discretion whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing; (4) on the record, specific findings supporting admission or exclusion. Failure to challenge reliability before trial generally waives the objection. Procedural framework requires expert disclosure under Tex. R. Civ. P. 195 well in advance, providing the opposing party adequate time to mount a challenge.
Soft sciences and experience-based testimony
For "soft sciences", psychology, psychiatry, social sciences, and pure experience-based opinion, courts apply the analytical-gap test rather than the Robinson factors. The court evaluates whether the expert's field is legitimate, whether the testimony falls within that field, and whether the expert is properly applying the field's methods to the facts. Pure experience-based opinions ("I've seen 1,000 of these and this one is X") are admissible when the experience is genuinely relevant and the expert's reasoning can be evaluated by the fact-finder. Bare credentials plus conclusion is not enough; the expert must show some methodology connecting facts to conclusion.
Common reliability problems
Recurring patterns of expert exclusion: (1) untested methodology, opinions based on novel theories without empirical validation; (2) excessive subjectivity, opinions that rely entirely on the expert's intuition without disclosed methodology; (3) analytical gap, conclusions that don't follow from the disclosed data; (4) application to facts, methodology that may be reliable in general but is not properly applied to the case facts; (5) scope, opinions outside the expert's qualifications; (6) ipse dixit opinions, "because I said so" without disclosed reasoning.
For Texas commercial litigants, the expert reliability challenge is one of the most consequential pretrial motions. A successful challenge can eliminate the opposing party's only damages theory, only causation evidence, or only liability theory, converting a contested case into one suitable for summary judgment. Best practice: (1) conduct rigorous reliability analysis on every opposing expert; (2) take expert depositions probing methodology, not just conclusions; (3) prepare Daubert motions early (prior to summary judgment, where possible); (4) for proponents, prepare experts to articulate methodology with reference to Robinson factors or analytical-gap criteria; (5) put detailed methodology in expert reports rather than reserving for trial. The Texas standard is functionally similar to federal practice; experts and counsel comfortable with Daubert practice will find the Texas framework familiar.
Full entry: Daubert and Robinson Standards