Opinion ID: 3012940
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Izenman’s Testimony

Text: We next address Finizie’s contention that the District Court improperly excluded the expert opinion of Alan Izenman, Ph.D. Finizie identified Izenman as her proposed duration of the illness; and any special circumstances counseling against delay. It is essential for appellate review that the district judge elaborate his considerations and explain his reasons for admitting prior testimony rather than granting a reasonable continuance. Faison, 679 F.2d at 297. Faison is distinguishable from this case in two significant ways. First, in Faison, we were balancing a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him against the policies enunciated in the Speedy Trial Act, considerations that do not apply here. Second, Faison addressed the possible delay of a trial where “the witness is expected to recover sufficiently to testify within a reasonable period.” Id. There was no indication here that Falast’s medical condition would improve. 5 expert and produced his report three weeks after discovery had closed and a day before the parties’ pretrial stipulations were due. In his report, Izenman limited his proposed opinion to the rate at which white nurses were hired as opposed to the rate at which minority nurses were hired at the Medical Center during 1987-92; the report did not discuss discipline, reassignments, promotions, or awards. The VA filed a motion in limine to exclude Izenman’s proposed testimony. The District Court granted the motion, finding that Izenman’s opinion as to hiring rates was not relevant to Finizie’s case, since Finizie did not allege a failure to hire. The District Court denied Finizie’s motion for a new trial based on its exclusion of Izenman’s testimony for similar reasons. Here, too, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Finizie’s motion for a new trial.