Opinion ID: 2805850
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Carper

Text: The district court struck Mr. Carper’s expert report on the ground that he was not qualified to render an opinion on whether the range was defectively 17 “The views expressed by authors, editors, or expert groups do not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the World Health Organization.” 18 See Knight, 482 F.3d at 354. Moreover, we may affirm a district court’s exclusion of evidence on any ground supported by the record. See MCI Commc’ns Servs., Inc. v. Hagan, 641 F.3d 112, 117 (5th Cir. 2011). 19 See Knight, 482 F.3d at 354 (citation omitted). 20 Id. at 354-55. 21 See Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146 (“A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” (citation omitted)); see also id. (“[N]othing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.”). 7 Case: 14-20603 Document: 00513067518 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/04/2015 No. 14-20603 designed because it failed to comply with the applicable American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) Z21.1 standard for gas ranges. We agree. Although Rule 702 does not require that an expert must be “highly qualified,” at the end of the day, the district court must be assured that a witness is qualified to testify by virtue of his “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” 22 Our review of Mr. Carper’s qualifications satisfies us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that he does not meet this threshold. Mr. Carper is an accomplished engineer with significant expertise in vehicular accident reconstruction and fire and explosion analysis; however, he has no significant experience or training that relates to carbon monoxide monitoring or defective gas appliances. Out of thirty-seven separate listings related to his qualifications on his five-page curriculum vitae, only one tangentially relates to the allegedly defective gas range in this case: a presentation on “gas systems and the investigation of gas appliance fires.” No gas appliance fire is at issue in this case; rather, the core claim here is that the gas range was defective because it emitted carbon monoxide in excess of an amount that is safe. We require that a “‘witness’s qualifying training or experience, and resultant specialized knowledge, are sufficiently related to the issues and evidence before the trier of fact [such] that the witness’s proposed testimony will help the trier of fact.” 23 Mr. Carper’s qualifications, while impressive, are not sufficiently relevant to the instant issues and evidence to 22 See FED. R. EVID. 702. 23 See Wen Chyu Liu, 716 F.3d at 167 (emphasis supplied) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 8 Case: 14-20603 Document: 00513067518 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/04/2015 No. 14-20603 make his proposed testimony probative. 24 For these reasons we affirm the district court’s striking of Mr. Carper’s opinion.