Mastery of Daubert and Expert Admissibility

No matter how distinguished an expert, she cannot provide the answers that judges most want to hear. Do the methods and principles that underly the parties' experts accord with accepted scientific research standards (i.e., Daubert)? Are the expert's opinions generally accepted among scientists (i.e. Daubert and Frye)?

Party experts are hired because their testimony aligns with the litigating position of the party paying the bills. Such experts may or may not be "hired guns," but many judges believe them to be just that. Hiring 2, 3, or even 10 experts would not help a litigant answer the one question that every judge must ask: Are the party experts testifying to good science?

With Final Report Review we provide an unbiased and neutral assessment of the bases for the disputed scientific opinion as well as what the consensus view is from the respective field. JuriLytics reviews are not just game changers: they rewrite the admissibility rules.


Challenge and defend an expert with independent peer review findings

Assess admissibility under Daubert or Frye

Enlist the help of premier research scientists and academics for your case

The most frequent problem cited by judges [] was experts who “abandon objectivity and become advocates for the side that hired them.”

- Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials: A Preliminary Analysis, Federal Judicial Center.

The Review Process (FR2)


  • You contact JuriLytics about your case

    We can be reached either by:

    • Phone at (650) 273-6476, Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM PST, or
    • E-mail at 24/7. We respond within 1 business day.

  • We perform a conflict check

    Before we can assist you with your case, we will perform a conflict-of-interest check with the parties involved in your case.

  • We are retained as consulting experts

    In order to assist you, JuriLytics must first be retained as a consulting expert. For new clients, a nominal retainer may be requested. A Client Agreement must also be executed by the client and JuriLytics.

  • You give us a case summary and expert materials to review

    After retaining our services, we will request expert materials for the report(s) that need peer review. The materials will include:

    • The expert report(s)
    • Copies of all references/authorities cited within the report(s)
    • A Curriculum Vitae (CV) of the author(s) of the report(s)
    • A testimony list of the author(s) of the report(s)


  • We determine the relevant technical fields

    In conjunction with your input, JuriLytics will analyze the expert report(s) to determine the relevant technical fields that are necessary to perform the peer review. JuriLytics has access to technical expertise across all academia, including medicine, biology, evironmental science, economics, accounting, engineering, computer science, and much, much more!

  • JuriLytics assembles a short list reviewer candidates

    JuriLytics will compile a suggested list of reviewers. These suggestions will be forwarded to an editor of a leading scientific journal in the relevant technical field. The editor will not know the identity of JuriLytics' client. The editor will then nominate 15-20 potential reviewers either from JuriLytics' suggested list or through their own knowledge of the field. Jurilytics will then contact the Reviewers in the order specified by the editor. The 'double-blind' selection process prevents selection bias on the part of JuriLytics.

  • First 3 vetted reviewers perform analyses

    After selecting a list of reviewers, JuriLytics will perform a preliminary conflict-of-interest evaluation to make sure that the potential reviewer has not 1) co-published with the author of the target expert report, and 2) been excluded in court as an expert witness. The reviewers will then be systematically contacted. All interested reviewers will then be asked to fill out a more detailed conflict-of-interest questionnaire. If no conflicts exist, then the reviewer will be retained by JuriLytics to peer review the target report.

    The entire selection process takes 2-3 weeks, depending on availability of editors and scientists. “JuriLytics recommends that the panel assembly be completed before the filed report needs to be reviewed. This will ensure a quick turnaround of the actual report review, which usually takes 1-2 weeks to complete.


  • Reviewers complete customized reviews

    Reviewers will be given the target draft report, the author's CV, and a list of references cited within the report. The reviewers will also be given a Review Template that is customize by JuriLytics to target the most relevant questions that judges must answer in their gatekeeping duties under Daubert. The client can evaluate the Review Templates and make requests to add additional questions to the Template.

    Reviewers will typically complete their review of the report within 1-2 weeks after receiving all materials.

  • Client uses the Reviews!

    After completion of the reviews, JuriLytics will grant access to the non-final work-product to the client. Meanwhile, JuriLytics will check the Reviews for editorial errors and clarity. The Reviewers will then be given a chance to respond to editorial suggestions and finalize the Reviews. JuriLytics will then send the client all finalized work-product for their use.

    The expectation is that the client will be able to use the Reviews to challenge an opposing expert or defend the client's expert from a Daubert or Frye challenge on the basis that it is not accepted by mainstream science and fails to employ reliable methods and principles. We have consulted with judges (including state and federal) and academic experts on whether a court would allow citation in a pretrial setting. The answers we've received so far is uniformly YES. The Rules of Evidence do not apply at the preliminary stages of litigation, so either in a memorandum or even at a pretrial hearing, JuriLytics' Reviews are expected to be of substantial value to the court. We, of course, cannot guarantee that a judge will rule in any particular way, but we will work with you to make the best presentation to the court that we can. In addition, it may be that the Reviewers will be subpoenaed for Deposition. However, our peer reviewers will be pretty well situated in such an event, since they have already passed a conflict-of-interest check and did not know which side they were working for when they completed their review.

    Finally, how the Reports are used is also ultimately a strategy decision for the client to make. If they advance the client's litigation position, JuriLytics expects that the client will make good use of the Reviews in Court. If the Reviews are more equivocal, this of course is information that the client will need to know going forward, since it will inform the ultimate litigation strategy. In any event, the client will always have full control over the use of the Reviews, which will not be discoverable since JuriLytic is operating initially as a consulting expert whose opinions, unless disclosed by the client, cannot be discovered under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

  • (Optional) Schedule a Q&A session with the reviewers

    If the client requests it, JuriLytics can arrange a telephone conference call so that the client can directly ask the Reviewers questions regarding their case and the expert report they evaluated. This service will be available pending the availability of the Reviewers.