- 18 -
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form
of an opinion or otherwise.
Pursuant to Fed. R. of Evid. 702, the Court must assure that
scientific evidence is not only relevant, but also reliable.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., supra at 589. Daubert,
however, is not limited to evidence that is scientific only in
the laboratory sense. Recently, in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
526 U.S. ___, ___, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1171 (1999), the Supreme
Court made clear: “Daubert’s general holding--setting forth the
trial judge’s general ‘gatekeeping’ obligation--applies not only
to testimony based on ‘scientific’ knowledge, but also to
testimony based on ‘technical’ and ‘other specialized’
knowledge.” Dr. Bajaj's testimony (as well as Mr. McCoy's) was
of a technical nature. Therefore, Daubert is applicable here,
and we have a gatekeeping role to perform.
As we have said, value is a question of fact. See supra
sec. II. Dr. Bajaj has an opinion as to that fact, arrived by
applying certain tools of financial analysis, primarily a
discounted cash-flow analysis, which is a method of analysis also
employed by Mr. McCoy. Petitioners do not claim that a
discounted cash-flow analysis is an unreliable tool for
determining the present value of one or more future cash-flows
(e.g., the distributions of cash Dr. Bajaj assumed G&J would
continue indefinitely). We have for many years relied on a
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011