Civil procedure; testimony of experts; effective date.
Summary
HB2628 amends Oklahoma’s evidence rules governing expert testimony in civil cases. The bill revises 12 O.S. 2021, Section 2702, to require that when a party offers scientific, technical, or other specialized expert testimony, the proponent must demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case.
In practical terms, the measure codifies a more explicit gatekeeping standard for trial courts when deciding whether expert opinions may be admitted. It is aimed at ensuring that expert evidence presented to juries or judges meets reliability requirements before it can be used in civil litigation. The bill is set to take effect November 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill would amend Oklahoma’s civil procedure evidence statute, 12 O.S. 2021, Section 2702, by clarifying the showing required for expert testimony to be admitted. It affects litigants in civil cases, expert witnesses, attorneys, and trial courts by placing the burden on the proponent of expert evidence to establish reliability by a preponderance-type standard. The change is likely to influence motions to exclude expert testimony and the admissibility of scientific and technical evidence in Oklahoma courts.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong support in committee, with the House Civil Judiciary Committee reporting the bill DO PASS by a 9-0 vote. No committee transcript is available, but the unanimous vote suggests the bill was viewed favorably and without recorded opposition at that stage. Overall, the bill appears to have been received as a technical evidentiary reform rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
There is no recorded committee debate in the provided materials, so no specific objections are documented. The main area where disagreement could arise is the heightened burden on parties offering expert testimony, since stricter admissibility standards can make it harder to present expert evidence in court. Any contention would likely come from civil litigants or practitioners concerned about limiting access to expert opinions, while supporters would likely favor improved reliability and judicial screening of expert evidence.