Opinion ID: 778211
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Four loan files

Text: 91 Flagstar next contends that the district court erred in preventing it from offering into evidence four loan files of minority applicants who were extended mortgages despite deficiencies in their applications or credit histories. In excluding this evidence, the district court stated: 92 There will be no comparable use — there will be no African-American comparable to an African-American file. It is not arguably relevant to any of the issues in this case. 93 Given[ ] the files available to [Flagstar] because of the large number of mortgages it generates, the fact that it [granted a mortgage to] an African-American wh[o] it says [is] comparable to ... one of the [ ] African-American plaintiffs[,] doesn't mean that [Flagstar] didn't discriminate against the [plaintiffs]. 94 The plaintiffs claim that Flagstar waived this issue by failing to make an offer of proof regarding the excluded files. Selden Apartments v. HUD, 785 F.2d 152, 162 n. 13 (6th Cir.1986) (noting that Rule 103(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a party to make known to the court the substance of the excluded evidence in order to preserve the issue for appeal). Flagstar has not responded to this argument, an argument that we find persuasive. In any event, even if the district court should have accepted the four files into evidence, we would have been hard-pressed to conclude that, by not doing so, it committed a clear error of judgment. Huey v. Stine, 230 F.3d 226, 228 (6th Cir.2000).