About Face! Florida Supreme Court Adopts Daubert Standard— Seven Months After Rejecting It
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.19
In a surprise reversal, the Florida Supreme Court last week adopted the state legislature’s 2017 “Daubert amendments,” replacing Frye with Daubert as the test for admissibility of expert testimony in the state’s trial courts.1 The decision comes just seven months after the court rejected the Daubert amendments as unconstitutional in DeLisle v. Crane Co.2 The switch is effective immediately.
When we wrote in our October 22, 2018 client alert that “the debate [in Florida] has come to an apparent end with the decision in DeLisle,”3 little did we know how much the word “apparent” would matter. DeLisle was the “proper case or controversy” the Court had insisted was necessary to address the constitutional concerns it had raised about Daubert in a 2017 per curiam order.4 DeLisle held that the Daubert amendments were procedural, not substantive; as such, they could be enacted only by the Court itself.5 The Court declined to do so. “With our decision today,” said the Court, “we reaffirm that Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida courts.”6
But in its May 23 decision, the Court adopted, “according to its exclusive rulemaking authority,”7 the very same amendments it had rejected last October. Now, said the Court, “the ‘grave constitutional concerns’ raised by those who oppose the amendments to the Code appear unfounded[.]”8 Briefly addressing the merits of the two admissibility standards, the Court added that “the Daubert amendments remedy deficiencies of the Frye standard,” “will create consistency between the state and federal courts,” and will “help lessen forum shopping.”9
What changed in seven months? The composition of the Court. Since DeLisle, three of the judges in the 4-3 majority have retired. “Without now readdressing the correctness of this Court’s ruling in DeLisle…,”10 the three dissenters joined two new judges to form the majority in the May 23 per curiam order.
Have we reached the end of the long and winding road to Daubert in Florida? Perhaps. But the Court left an opening once more: “[W]e do not decide, in this rules case, the constitutional or other substantive concerns that have been raised about the amendments. Those issues must be left for a proper case or controversy.”11
1 In re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code (May 23, 2019).
5 DeLisle, slip op. at 7.
2 No. SC16-2182 (October 15, 2018).
3 Client Alert, “Florida Supreme Court Rebuffs Legislature’s Mandate to Adopt Daubert Standard,” October 22, 2018.
4 In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, Order at 9 (Feb. 16, 2017).
6 Id. at 19.
7 In re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, Order at 1 (May 23, 2019).
8 Id. at 2.
9 Id. at 6.
10 Id. at 2.
11 Id. at 5.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
FinCEN Delays Implementation Date and Reopens AML/CFT Rule for Investment Advisers
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
Series of Major Data Breaches Targeting the Insurance Industry
Client Alert | 11 min read | 08.06.25
