Recovered Memory Experts and FRE 702 Gatekeeping: Evaluating Whether Good Grounds Support Expert Testimony

This CLE webinar will discuss expert evidence related to "repressed" or "recovered" memories in sexual abuse litigation, specifically focusing on admissibility contests under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Daubert, and parallel state rules. The discussion will include Cohen v. Cohen, 125 F.4th 454 (3d Cir. 2025), which offers the first in-depth circuit court analysis of repressed memory theory under FRE 702 and provides detailed guidance on how opinions of any experts regardless of subject matter ought to be analyzed before being admitted into evidence.

It is no longer unusual for abuse claims to be lodged long after the alleged acts occurred. Although many states have lengthened or temporarily reopened the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse, it is still not unusual for plaintiffs to assert claims based on alleged "recovered" or "repressed" memories. This theory has been particularly controversial because of the possibility of counselors creating false memories.

The stakes in these kinds of cases are extremely high, with no margin for error. Attorneys bringing or defending abuse cases grounded in recovered memories—which may not be limited to sexual abuse—need to understand this exceedingly difficult and complicated subject in detail. 

In Cohen v. Cohen, the Third Circuit was confronted with a childhood sexual abuse case based on recovered memories. It reviewed how the district court should have analyzed the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert's opinion, specifically focusing on the requirements of FRE 702 and what happens when both sides present expert testimony. Cohen offers an in-depth analysis of the "recovered" memory theory and its experts, but more significantly sheds light on the nuances of FRE 702 and dueling experts that can be applied in any type of case.

Listen as this distinguished panel discusses expert evidence related to "repressed" or "recovered" memories and the lessons from Cohen that are applicable to any case involving experts and especially dueling experts.