Opinion ID: 213920
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Salvant's testimony

Text: The district court's decision to exclude Salvant's testimony implicates Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403. Under Rule 702, a qualified expert may testify on matters requiring specialized knowledge if such knowledge will help the factfinder understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, subject to certain conditions. FED.R.EVID. 702. Whether an expert will assist the factfinder is a question the trial court has wide discretion to decide. Mercado v. Austin Police Dep't, 754 F.2d 1266, 1269 (5th Cir.1985). This is true particularly when the court sits as trier of fact, for [it] is then in the best position to know whether expert testimony would help [it] understand the case. Id. Under Rule 403, evidence, though relevant, may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by considerations of... needless presentation of cumulative evidence. FED.R.EVID. 403. A district court has broad discretion to weigh the relevance, probative value, and prejudice of the evidence in determining its admissibility under Rule 403. United States v. Allard, 464 F.3d 529, 534 (5th Cir.2006). We conclude on this record that the district court was well within its discretion to exclude Salvant's testimony at trial. LaGrange testified on the scope and cost of damage to the Plaintiffs' home, and the district court concluded that Salvant's testimony on the same subject would be unhelpful and needlessly cumulative. The Plaintiffs contend that Salvant's testimony would have helped the district court determine whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to the full extended limits in the Extended Limits Endorsement, and whether the 2006 version of Louisiana Revised Statute § 22:658 applied to the Plaintiffs' claim. But the district court resolved these issues as a matter of law or on the basis of facts that were undisputed by the parties. Salvant's testimony regarding the extent of the damage would have been irrelevant to its analysis. We thus cannot say that the district court's determination was clearly erroneous.