Opinion ID: 2981353
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Testimony of Tegler

Text: Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred when it failed to strike the allegedly nonresponsive testimony of Tegler. Plaintiffs fail to explain how this alleged error prejudiced them. A non-constitutional error is harmless unless it is more probable than not that the error impacted the verdict. Stockman, D.D.S., v. Oakcrest Dental Ctr., P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 799 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Fountain, 2 F.3d 656, 668 (6th Cir. 1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is appropriate to consider the 17 entire record to determine if the alleged error was likely to prejudice the party. Id. “Prejudice exists only where there is a substantial risk that the outcome of the trial was affected.” Whitson v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 10–6240, 2012 WL 913708, at  (6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2012) (citing Stockman, 480 F.3d at 799). Because Plaintiffs fail to show how any part of Tegler’s alleged non-responsive answers impacted the outcome of the trial, we affirm the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion to strike.