Opinion ID: 2924446
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The City’s motion in limine

Text: Prior to trial, the City filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony it anticipated would be presented by Gallela, the economist Judy had hired, regarding the economic loss attendant to Louis’s death. The City argued that Gallela’s economic loss report ignored contradictory testimony from the family’s depositions and that his report was too speculative to survive application of the Daubert factors3 for assessing the credibility of scientific testimony. The City also argued that Gallela’s testimony was not sufficiently reliable to be allowed under Alaska Rule of Evidence 703. Judy opposed the City’s motion, arguing that under Alaska law a Daubert hearing was not a prerequisite for the admission of economic loss testimony and that Gallela was a highly qualified economic expert. The superior court denied the City’s motion and allowed Gallela to testify, concluding that “[t]he City’s objections . . . go to the weight of the testimony and opinions, not their admissibility.”