Heller v. District of Columbia, 952 F. Supp. 2d 133

Plaintiffs (Heller and others) brought a follow-on Second Amendment challenge to D.C. firearms registration and related requirements after the Supreme Court’s Heller decision.
The D.C. Circuit remanded certain handgun registration provisions and all long-gun registration requirements for further factual development and justification under intermediate scrutiny.
Defendants disclosed three proposed expert witnesses under Rule 26: Mark D. Jones (former ATF agent), Cathy L. Lanier (MPD Chief), and Joseph J. Vince, Jr. (former ATF agent). Each submitted relatively brief expert reports and later were deposed.
Plaintiffs moved in limine to strike the experts, arguing (1) the reports failed Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure requirements and (2) the opinions were unreliable under Rule 702 and Daubert.
The court evaluated whether the reports provided adequate notice (Rule 26) and whether experience-based law-enforcement opinions were sufficiently reliable and relevant (Rule 702/Daubert).
The court denied the motions to strike, finding the reports met Rule 26’s notice function and the experts’ experience-based methodology satisfied admissibility standards; challenges to the weight of the testimony are for cross-examination or summary- judgment/trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures	Experts’ reports lack the facts/data and detail required by Rule 26(a)(2)	Reports list opinions, experience, and materials reviewed and give adequate notice for depositions/rebuttal	Reports satisfy Rule 26: provide sufficient notice; depositions and further testing of bases are available
Admissibility under Rule 702/Daubert	Opinions are subjective, policy-driven, unreliable, and not the type of evidence remand required	Experts rely on long specialized law-enforcement experience and identified materials; methodology is appropriate for experience-based testimony	Experts’ experience-based methodology is reliable and relevant; admissibility is proper — challenges go to weight, not exclusion

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping standard for expert admissibility)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment substantive holding; remand context referenced)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert principles apply to non-scientific experts; trial-court deference on reliability)
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (courts may exclude testimony when analytical gap between data and opinion is too great)
Muldrow ex rel. Estate of Muldrow v. Re-Direct, Inc., 493 F.3d 160 (Rule 26 does not limit expert testimony to the written report; expert may elaborate at trial)
United States v. Walker, 657 F.3d 160 (law-enforcement experience can be a reliable basis for expert testimony)