Tumlinson v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
106 A.3d 983
Del.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Tumlinson et al.) sued AMD alleging workplace chemical exposure of two employees in Texas caused birth defects in their children.
- AMD is a Delaware corporation headquartered in California; exposures and injuries occurred in Texas.
- Superior Court applied Texas substantive tort law and Delaware procedural/evidentiary law.
- Plaintiffs sought to admit Dr. Linda Frazier’s causation opinion; AMD moved to exclude it as irrelevant and unreliable.
- The Superior Court excluded Frazier’s testimony as irrelevant under Delaware procedure because it would be insufficient under Texas substantive law; the court did not rule on reliability.
- On appeal, the Delaware court affirmed choice-of-law (Texas substantive, Delaware procedural) but remanded for the trial judge to decide reliability under Delaware (Daubert) before resolving whether Texas sufficiency may be considered as part of relevance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for substantive issues | California or Delaware law should apply (variously argued) | Texas substantive law governs because injuries and conduct occurred in Texas | Court: Plaintiff waived arguments for California/Delaware substantive law; affirmed Texas substantive + Delaware procedural law |
| Procedural rule governing admissibility | Admissibility is a procedural question for Delaware (apply Daubert) | Same; but evidence must also be meaningful under Texas causation standards | Court: Admissibility is procedural and governed by Delaware (Daubert), but acknowledged tensions with Texas sufficiency rules |
| Whether trial judge may consider substantive sufficiency when excluding experts | Expert admissibility should be decided under Delaware relevance/reliability; plaintiff contended judge should not substitute Texas sufficiency at Daubert stage | AMD argued that an opinion that cannot satisfy Texas causation is irrelevant under Delaware because it would have no evidentiary value | Court: Declined to decide the broader conflict; remanded so trial judge first determines reliability under Delaware before addressing sufficiency/relevance overlap |
| Exclusion of Dr. Frazier’s testimony | Frazier’s opinion is admissible (sufficient to reach jury) | Frazier’s opinion is irrelevant/insufficient under Texas causation standards and unreliable | Court: Affirmed choice-of-law and prior exclusion in part but remanded for trial court to assess reliability under Delaware Daubert rules before final determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (federal gatekeeping standard: expert testimony must be relevant and reliable)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony, not only scientific)
- M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513 (Del. 1999) (Delaware adoption of Daubert/Kumho under D.R.E. 702)
- Merrell Dow Pharm. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (Texas standard for expert causation evidence in toxic torts)
- Merck & Co. v. Garza, 347 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2011) (reaffirming Texas causation/sufficiency standards)