Opinion ID: 610623
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Klaassen

Text: 50 According to the defendants, the trial court erred by admitting Dr. Klaassen's testimony regarding an impairment rating because the plaintiffs failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(B). We need not address this argument, however, because the defendants waived it below. The defendants correctly point out that a motion in limine may be sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal despite the absence of a contemporaneous trial objection. Cook v. Hoppin, 783 F.2d 684, 691 n. 2 (7th Cir.1986). But in this case, defense counsel specifically withdrew his objection to Dr. Klaassen's testimony during a hearing on the motion in limine which sought to exclude the testimony. The trial court asked defense counsel, If I understand correctly, the objection runs only to the exhibits and not to the testimony of the impairment rating. Is that correct ...? Defense counsel's unequivocal answer of yes waived this argument.