Opinion ID: 2709146
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dr. Dunn

Text: In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court found that Dr. Dunn was not an expert in epidemiology and that his testimony was not credible. The court then 8 No. 13-1629 determined that the expert report he submitted, titled “Dr. Dunn’s Report to the Ohio Legislature,” was not an expert report for the purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). It based this determination largely on Dunn’s admissions at trial that the report was produced for political purposes and that Dunn himself would not have submitted it as an expert report. Because Dr. Dunn did not produce the required expert report, the court struck the entirety of his testimony. The bar owners challenge these determinations, arguing that Dr. Dunn should have been certified as an expert, and that the district court should not have struck his testimony. To the extent either of these decisions was in error, however, it was harmless. See Goodman v. Ill. Dep’t of Fin. and Prof’l Regulation, 430 F.3d 432, 439 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Even an erroneous evidentiary ruling can be deemed harmless if the record indicates that the same judgment would have been rendered regardless of the error.”). The district court found Dr. Dunn’s testimony not credible, and this finding withstands appellate review. Nothing in the court’s analysis requires us to disavow the “great weight” we typically accord expert witness credibility determinations. Huebner, 752 F.2d at 1245. The court noted the political tone of his testimony and his expert report, in particular Dr. Dunn’s practice of referring to people who opposed secondhand smoke as the “High Church of Holy Smoke Haters.” His strongly held and frequently expressed political views could reasonably be understood to have influenced the science he presented before the court. This coupled with the character of his expert report—a political document prepared for submission to the Ohio State Legislature—provided ample basis on which the district court could rest its finding that his testimony was not credible. Thus, even had the district court considered Dr. Dunn an expert, it would have given his testimony little weight. No. 13-1629 9 Particularly given that the court found the City’s expert on the health effects of secondhand smoke credible, Dr. Dunn’s testimony would have had minimal impact.