Opinion ID: 2799375
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Witness declaration

Text: Noble argues that the district court improperly considered the declaration of Candace Short because she was an undisclosed expert witness. See Fed. R. Evid. 702. Short, however, did not testify as an expert but as a records keeper, what she was disclosed to be. She testified about the contents of the deed, plat, and tax map, all of No. 14‐2745 Page 4 which were public records. Short neither provided an “expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,” nor did she testify to a fact at issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). The existence of the property line was not at issue. What was at issue was whether Noble parked his car over the property line, to which Short did not testify and Noble admitted. Furthermore, Short’s testimony was not “the product of reliable principles and methods,” and she did not “reliably appl[y] the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(c) & (d). Because Short did not testify as an expert, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Noble’s motion to exclude her declaration.