Opinion ID: 884701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the District Court err when it denied Simmons' motion in limine concerning Wells Fargo's expert testimony of refinery value?

Text: ¶ 21 Simmons sought in its motion in limine to preclude J. David Capers from testifying concerning refinery value. Simmons argues that Capers' testimony was not relevant to the issue of Simmons' damages. Simmons also argues the valuation testimony offered by Capers was misleading and confusing to the jury because Simmons was seeking lost partnership cash flow, not the value of the facility. Wells Fargo responds that its expert, Capers, did testify to the cash flow and capital improvement needs as well as a market value analysis. Further, Capers testified to a different discount rate than that testified to by Simmons' damage expert, Knudsen. ¶ 22 After review of Capers' testimony and noting that it was not adopted by the jury, and, that it did address cash flow and capital improvement issuesalso addressed by Simmons' expertwe do not find the District Court abused its discretion by denying Simmons' motion in limine. Alternative approaches to measure loss are within the meaning of Rule 401, M.R.Evid. It is up to the jury to decide which is more or less probable as a measure of loss. Here, the jury did not accept Capers' testimony concerning valuation, and, thus, the evidentiary ruling by the District Court does not constitute a manifest abuse of discretion.