FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L17, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 29 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 7 :0 8- cv -0 00 13 -HL

SOUTHERN STATE S COOPERATIVE, INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us MELICK AQUAFEEDS, INC., MELICK AQUAFEED, LL C, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll an ts .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re EDMONDSON an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es , andVINSON, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e. Honora

ble C. Roge r Vinson, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation.PER CURI AM:

So ut he rnSta te s C oo pe rat iv e, In c. (“ So ut he rnSta te s” ) is a co m m erci al pr oduc er o f ti lapi a wit h fa ci li ti es in m ul ti pl e st at es . In o r aro un d 2 00 3, i t b eg an bu y in g fe edfro m

Mel ic k Aqua feed s, In c., an d, a f ew y ears lat er i n 2 00 6, fr om Mel ic k Aqua feed , LLC (“ Mel ic k,” co ll ect iv el y ). In Oct ob er 2 00 6, So ut he rnSta te s no ti ceda de cl in e in th e g ro wth of i ts ti lapi a an d ade crea se in feedco ns um pt io n b y th e fi sh . Sou th ern Sta te s the n b eg antes ti ng each sh ip m en t o f fee d t o s ee i f it co m pl ie d wi th Mel ic k’s g uaran te es reg ard in g fa t an d p ro te in co nt en t. Aft er di sc ov eri ng th atso m e sa m pl es of f eedth atwere t es te d d idno t co m pl y , Sou th ern St at es bro ug htth is su itforbre ach of wa rran ty, ne gl ig en t m is rep res en ta ti on , and frau d. Inpre parat io n fo r tr ia l, So ut he rnSta te s re ta in edDr. Stev enCrai g, a d oc to r of fis h nut rit io n, an d M el ic k re ta in edDr. Don al d Dav is , a pr of es so r of fis h nu tri ti on . Both p art ie s fi le d m ot io ns to ex cl ud e th e o th er’s ex pe rt t es ti m on y ; b ot h m ot io ns were d en ie d. Du rin g t ria l, Dr. Cra ig tes ti fie d re ga rd in g t he cau sa l l in k be twee n fa t an d p ro te in lev el s i n fe edan d fi sh gro wth . At the clo se of e vi de nc e, Mel ic k m ov edfora di rect edve rd ic t o n S ou th ern St at es ’s cla im

forlo stpro fit s, b utth e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d t ha t i t wo ul d d eferit s ru li ng un ti l af

te r tr ia l. The jury th enfou ndth atMel ic k h adbre ach edit s warran ty 2an d a ward edSo ut he rnSta te s $ 77 0,2 29 .30 in lo stpro fit s. Be cau se th e d is tri ct

co urt h adno t ru le d o n t he m ot io n i t h adpre vi ou sl y de ferr ed , Mel ic k fi le d a ren ewedm ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 0( b) (ora ne w tri al ) reg ard in g d am ag es . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t ha t m ot io n. Mel ic k n ow ap pe al s o n two g ro un ds : (1 ) th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n a ll owi ng Dr. Crai g t o t es ti fy reg ard in g c au sa ti onan d (2 ) th at So ut he rnSta te s’s d am ag es awardis im pe rm is si bl e. Afte r rev ie w andarg um en t, we affi rm . I. Mel ic k a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin pe rm it ti ng Dr. Crai g t o t es ti fy be cau se hi s t he or ie s wer e u ns ci en ti fic an d u nr el iabl e. W e rev ie w evi de nt ia ry ru li ng s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n andm ay on ly rever se if the re was subs ta nt ia l pr ejud ic e to th e ag gr ie ve d p arty . Golds mith v . BagbyElev at or Co . , 51 3 F .3d 12 61 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). A di st ric t co urt m ay no t ad m itanex pe rt o pi ni on if th e supp orti ng m etho do lo gy for the op in io n i s n ot“ ‘suf fic ie nt ly reli ab le as de te rm in edby the so rt o f in qu iry m an da te d i n Dau be rt .[ ]’ ” Uni te d Sta tes v. 1 Fra zi er , 38 7 F .3d12 44 , 12 60 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (enba nc ) (quo ti ng Ci tyof Daubert v. M

errell Dow Pharm., Inc . , 509 U.S. 579, 589, 113 S. C t. 2786, 2794 (1993). 1 3Tu sc al oo sa v. Har cr os Ch ems ., Inc . , 15 8 F .3d54 8, 5 62 (11 th Cir . 19 98 )). Und er

Dau be rt , a co urt ev al ua te s the rel iabi li ty of m etho do lo gy by co ns id eri ng “ (1 ) whe th er the ex pe rt’s the ory canbe an d h as be entes te d; (2) whet he r th e th eo ry ha s be ensubjec te d t o p eer r ev ie w andpubl ic at io n; (3) th e kno wn o r po te nt ia l ra te of erro r of th e p art ic ul ar s ci en ti fic tec hn ique ; an d (4 ) whe th er the tec hn ique is ge ne ral ly accep te d i n t he sci en ti fic co m m un it y .” McCo rv ey v. Baxt er Heal th ca re Co rp . , 29 8 F .3d12 53 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (ci ti ng Dau be rt , 50 9 U.S. at59 3– 94 , 11 3 S . Ct. at27 96 –9 8) . Dr. Crai g t es ti fie d t o t he fol lo win g: Fis h fe edco nt ai ns a m ix of p ro te in an d fat . Fat, u nl ik e p ro te in , in du ces sat ie ty in fi sh . There fo re, a h ig h fa t co nt en t i n feedli m it s t he qu an ti ty a fis h c aneat . If a fi sh were t o c on su m e a s m al le r qu an ti ty of feed , th atwou ldde crea se it s i nt ak e o f gr owt h- in du ci ng pro te in , res ul ti ng in a de pr es si on of g ro wth . This effe ctwou ldbe ex acerba te d i f pr ot ei n l ev el s wer e lo wer tha n a ve rag e in th e fee d. InDr. Crai g’s wo rd s, “ th e wor stpo ss ib le co m bi na ti on is a real ly hig h fa t d ie t co m bi ne d wi th a lo w pro te indi et , cau se , as I m en ti on edearl ie r[,] the fis h, h e eat s t o s at is fy hi s en erg y

requi rem en t, s o i f he ’s go t a l otof f

atin th atdi et , he’s g oi ng to st op eat in g b efo re h e g et s en ou gh pro te in to gro w.” On ap pe al , Mel ic k d oe s n otch al le ng e th e v al id it y of t hi s the ory

of cau sa ti on or t he sci en ti fic m etho do lo gy tha t s up po rts it . 4Howev er, Dr. Cra ig als o t es ti fie d t ha t the flu ctua ti on s i n t he feed ’s fat -to pr ot ei n ra ti os were h arm fu l t o fi sh . He adm it te d t ha t n o s ci en ti fic stud ie s h av e be enco nduc te d t o s up po rt h is co m m en ts th atva ria ti on s i n fe edco m po si ti on can in hi bi t the gro wth of f

is h. Me li ck , arg ui ng th atth is tes ti m on y ab ou t fl uc tu at io n crea te d p reju di ce, as se rts : “ Bec au se pl ai nt iff pre se nt ed no othe r ev iden ce o f ca us at io n , th e jury hadto ha ve acce pt edCrai g’s ca us at io n the or y th at th e fl uc tu at io n in pro te in to fatlev el s caus edth e d ecre as e ingro wth in pl ai nt iff’s fis h,” (em ph as es ad de d) an d ju rie s g iv e g reatweig htto ex pe rt t es ti m on y . W e can no t ag ree wi th Mel ic k’s as se rti on of p reju di ce an d i ts ch arac te riz at io n o f Dr. Crai g’s t es ti m on y . MarkTwainadvi se d, “ Do n ottel l fi sh st or ie s wh ere t he pe op le kn ow you; bu t p art ic ul arl y , do n’t t el l the m wher e th ey kn ow t he fis h.” In t hi s ca se , we kn ow t he fis h— an d t he fact s— an d b y no m ean s 2 was th e “ flu ctua ti on th eo ry ,” as Mel ic k h as dubb edit , Dr. Crai g’s s ol e (o r ev en pr im ary) the ory

of c au sa ti on . Dr. Crai g o nl y m en ti on edth e eff

ectof f lu ctua ti ng nu tri en t l ev el s a f

ew ti m es in hi s ex te ns iv e te st im on y , andth os e rem ark s wer e in de pe nd en t o f hi s m ai n c au sa ti on th eo ry th atlo w lev el s o f pr ot ei n andhi gh lev el s

See M ark Twain: Coll ecte d Tales, Sketche s, Speec hes, &

Essays, 1891-1910 , 942 (L ouis 2 J . Budd e d., L iterar

y Classics of the United States 1992).

5of

fatcansl ow fi sh gro wth . Becau se we do no t fi ndth atadm is si on of Dr. C rai g’s te st im on y crea te d s ub st an ti al pre

jud ic e to Mel ic k, we wi ll no t re ve rs e th at ev id en ti ary ru li ng . Mel ic k a ls o c on te nd s t ha t Dr. Cra ig ’s di ffer en ti al eti ol og y was d efi ci en t. Diff eren ti al eti ol og y

is a pr oc es s o f el im in at io n i n wh ic h (1 ) anex pe rt c om pi le s al l po ss ib le cau se s o f anin

jury, see Hend

ri x ex r el . G.P. v. Even

fl o C o. , 60 9 F .3d 11 83 , 11 95 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), an d (2 ) he rul es ou t ea ch of t he po te nt ia l caus es

“un ti l re ach in g o ne th atcan no t b e ru le d o utor d et erm in in g wh ic h o f th os e th at can no t b e ex cl ud edis th e m os t l ik el y ,” Gui nn v. Astra Zen eca Pha rm. LP , 60 2 F .3d 12 45 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . 3 Whe n ru li ng ou t caus es in th e se co ndst ep , an e xp ert“ m us t p ro vi de reas on s fo r reject in g a lt ern at iv e h y

po th es es us in g s ci en ti fic m etho ds an d p ro cedur es an d t he el im in at io n o f th os e h y

po th es es m

us t b e fo un de d o n m or e th ansubjec ti ve be li efs orun supp orte d s pe cu la ti on .” Hen dr ix , 60 9 F .3dat 1 19 7 (q uo ti ng Clau se n v . M/V NEW CARISS A , 33 9 F .3d10 49 , 10 58 (9t h C ir. 2 00 3) ). Mel ic k a rg ue s t ha t Dr. Cra ig fai le d t o c om pl et e st ep two be cau se he di d n ot sc ie nt ifi cal ly rule ou t al te rn at iv e cau se s fo r th e sl owi ng of f is h g ro wth , bu t i ns te ad Guinn uses the ter

m “diffe rential diagnosis” rathe r than “ differ ential etiology ,” but 3 explains that it is simply

following“the tre nd amongfede ral c ourts . . . [t o] use the term differ ential diagnosis to refer to both concepts.” 602 F.3d at 1253 n.6.

6“ as su m edth em away .” Mel ic k c on te nd s tha t al l o f th e fo ll owi ng co ul d h av e b een cau se s: po orwate r qu al it y or t em pe ratur e, ch an ge s i n fe ed , di se as e, fau lty equi pm en t, o r ov ers to ck edtan ks . Sou th ern Sta te s co rrec tl y po in ts ou t tha t Dr. Crai g a dd res se d t he se fact or s, t es ti fy in g t o the fol lo win g: Til ap iaare h ardy fis h cap ab le of t hr iv in g i n ava rie ty of wat er co nd it io ns . Any pro bl em s wi th wate r co nd it io ns are u su al ly caus edby feed— ei th er p ol lu ti onof t he wate r be cau se fis h ha ve no t co ns um edth e st an da rdam ou ntof f eedor i nc reas edam

m on iu m lev el s fro m im pr op er p ro te in co nt en t. Ch an ge s i n fe edon ly affectfis h fo r on e o r two da y s an d t he n t he y

wil l re su m e n orm al eat in g h ab it s. Virul en t b act eri al st rai ns are th e m ajordi se as e aff

ect in g t il ap ia , bu t “ ev erythi ng wil l d ie ” if ba ct eri a aff

li ct s a ta nk . Giv enth atth e m orta li ty rate i n t he tan ks was l ow, a b act eri a in fect io n was un li ke ly. So ut he rnSta te s emplo y edda il y m on it or in g p ro cedur es to ex am in e wat er qu al it y an d e qu ip m en t. Mel ic k l ab el s Dr. Cr ai g’s ra ti on al e as un sc ie nt ifi c, bu t i t fa il s t o a de qu at el y ex pl ai n wh atde fic ie nc ie s i t fi nd s i n h is m etho do lo gy or p ro cedur es . It ap pe ars th atMel ic k re al ly j us t d is ag rees with Dr. Cr ai g’s s ta te m en ts ; i n s ub st an ce, Me li ck as ks th e co urt t o re ve rs e o n t he gro un d t ha t Dr. Cra ig ha s n otpro vi de d p ers ua si ve orsu ffi ci en t ex pl an at io ns forrul in g o utcau se s. Ho wev er, the co urt’s ro le as a ga te ke ep er “ is no t i nt en de d t o s up pl an t the adve rs ary syste m or t he rol e o f th e 7jury: ‘ [v ]igo ro us cro ss -ex am in at io n, p res en ta ti on of c on trary ev id en ce, an d c aref

ul in st ru ct io n o n t he bu rd enof p ro of are the tra di ti on al an d app ro pr ia te m ean s o f at ta ck in g s ha ky bu t ad m is si bl e ev id en ce.’” All is on v. McGha n Me di ca l Co rp . , 18 4 F .3d13 00 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ci ti ng Dau be rt , 50 9 U.S. at59 6, 1 13 S. Ct. at27 86 ). Mel ic k’s co nt en ti on s s pe akto th e wei gh t t o b e aff or de d Dr. Cr ai g’s te st im on y , no t i ts adm is si bi li ty, an d a re thu s n otwithi n o urpro vi nc e to ev al ua te . 4 II. Mel ic k a ls o c ha ll en ge s So ut he rnSta te s’s d am ag es award . W e rev ie wde no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Mel ic k’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law un de r Ru le 50 . Opt imu m Tech s., In c. v. Hen kel Co ns ume r Ad

he si ves , Inc . , 49 6 F.3 d 1 23 1, 1 25 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . In o urrev ie w, we dra w all in fere nc es in fav or of th e n on -m ov in g p arty . Rus se ll v. N. Bro wa rd

Hos p. , 34 6 F .3d13 35 , 13 43 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ). W e “ affi rm

th e jury verd ic t u nl es s t he re i s n o l eg al ba si s upo n wh ic h th e jury cou ldha ve fou ndfor[th e p la in ti ff].” Tel eco m Tech ni ca l S ervs . Inc . v. Rolm Co. , 38 8 F .3d82 0, 8 30 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Mel ic k a rg ue d b efo re the di st ric t co urt tha t So ut he rnSta te s h adno t Melick make s much of the f act that the district c ourt appe are d to sugg est in a post-trial 4 order that its Daubert

rulingwith reg ards to Dr . Craigmay have be en incor

rec t. Whi le there may arguably have be en some de ficienc ies in Dr. Craig ’s assumptions and testimony (e.g ., his failure to independently

test the wate r quality

in the tanks), those issues we re subjec t to rigor ous crossexamination, were satisfactorily explained, and wer e prope rly left to the jury

to consider. Any err or wa s harmless. 8subm it te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o p ro ve it s l os t p ro fit s t o areas on ab le de gr ee o f cert ai nt y . On ap pe al , Mel ic k c on te nd s t ha t a l os t p ro fit s m eas ur e o f da m ag es is in ap pr op ria te an d t ha t So ut he rnSta te s s ho ul d o nl y reco ve r fo r it s de la

yin rece iv in g p ro fit s. Be cau se th is de la y arg um en t was no t ra is edbe lo w, we dec li ne to co ns id er i t. Se e BUC In t’l Co rp . v. Int ’l Y

ac ht Co un ci l Ltd. , 48 9 F .3d11 29 , 11 40 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (“ As a g en eral rul e, we do no t co ns id er i ss ue s n otpre se nt ed in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e to th e tr ia l co urt.”) . Mel ic k a rg ue s i n t he alt ern at iv e th atif alo stpro fit s m eas ur e o f da m ag es is co rrec t, So ut he rnSta te s fa il edto pro pe rly pro ve it s an ti ci pa te d e xp en se s. Un de r Geo rg ialaw, a p la in ti ff s eek in g re co ve ry of l os t p ro fit s m

us t ty pi cal ly pro ve bo th an ti ci pa te d re ve nu es an d e xp en se s wi th reas on ab le cert ai nt y in ord er t o re co ve r. Ben ne tt v. Smi th , 26 7 S .E.2d19 , 20 (Ga. 19 80 ). If a p la in ti ff ca n s ho w th at ex pe ns es rem ai ne d e ss en ti al ly the same durin g t he pe rio d a t i ss ue , th e jury is au th or iz edto awardth e p la in ti ff i ts lo strev enue s dur in g t ha t p eri odas l os t p ro fit da m ag es . Se e id. (al lo win g ju ry ’s awardof l os t re ve nu es as alo stpro fit s m eas ur e whe re p la in ti ff eg g fa rm

op erat or s s ho wedth atfarm ex pe ns es rem ai ne d s tabl e du rin g t he pe rio d o f de crea se d p ro du ct io n re su lt in g fr om de fen da nt ’s co nt am in at edfeed ). The jury he re awar de d S ou th ern Sta te s l os t p ro fit s o f $7 70 ,22 9.3 0— an 9am ou ntequa l t o i ts all eg edlo strev enue s. Lis a Del laMo ni ca o f So ut he rnSta te s

te st ifi edth atSo uthe rnSta te s’s ex pe ns es rem ai ne d s tabl e dur in g t he ti m e p eri odat is su e in th is cas e. Mel ic k a rg ue s (wi th ou t p oi nt in g t o a ny evi de nc e in supp ort) th athe r te st im on y

m us t b e in co rrec t b ecau se th ere a re a n um be r of va riabl e co st s as so ci at edwith ra is in g fi sh . Becau se th e jury was en ti tl edto cred itDell a Mo ni ca’s t es ti m on y

as t ru e, an d t he refo re was pe rm it te d t o c on cl ud e th atlo st rev enue s equa le d l os t p ro fit s, Ben ne tt , 26 7 S .E.2dat 2 0, we af firm . AFFIRMED.

10