Opinion ID: 182637
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion in Limine: Expert Testimony

Text: In a motion in limine, WWFS asked the district court to bar Kirchner from testifying at trial. WWFS argued Kirchner's testimony did not meet the helpful requirement of Fed.R.Evid. 702 and Daubert [ v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)], and therefore, should be excluded. WWFS stressed Kirchner made only simple mathematical calculations to arrive at his damages calculation, and his determinations with respect to misdirected donations [were] speculative at best, fail[ed] to rule out other alternative explanations[,] and fail[ed] to connect with the facts of the case. The district court denied WWFS's motion, finding Kirchner relied on his experience as a forensic accountant, analyz[ed] a substantial amount of financial data, and applied reliable methods in forming opinions that would help the jury understand the evidence. The district court averred WWFS's challenges to[]Kirchner's failure to consider and account for certain factors goes to the weight of his testimony rather than admissibility. WWFS reasserts its arguments on appeal. WWP responds that WWFS waived its arguments by failing to renew its objections to Kirchner's testimony at trial. The district court's denial of WWFS's motion in limine was sufficient to preserve error, see Fed.R.Evid. 103(a); Shelton v. Kennedy Funding, Inc., 622 F.3d 943, 958-59 & n. 14 (8th Cir.2010) (discussing the most recent iteration of Rule 103(a)), but we hold the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in permitting Kirchner's testimony, see Khoury v. Philips Med. Sys., 614 F.3d 888, 891-92 (8th Cir.2010) (standard of review). Fed. R.Evid. 702 provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. There is not, as WWFS suggests, an implicit requirement in Fed.R.Evid. 702 for the proffered expert to make complicated mathematical calculations. See In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 514 F.3d 825, 831 (8th Cir.2008) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to exclude expert testimony that represented an exercise in basic math using simple deductive reasoning). Forensic accountants routinely rely, surely to no one's surprise, on the books and records and financial information ... provided. Forklifts of St. Louis, Inc. v. Komatsu Forklift, USA, Inc., 178 F.3d 1030, 1035 (8th Cir. 1999). [7] WWFS's attacks on Kirchner's methodology lack merit.