Opinion ID: 766590
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Expert Witness Testimony

Text: 31 The district court limited the expert testimony of Defendant's ERISA expert, Albert L. Grasso, on the ground that Grasso's conclusions were inaccurate as a matter of law . . . inherently misleading, not reasonably tied to the facts in evidence, and [the testimony] would not assist the Jury's understanding of the case. (R. 181). Grasso's omitted testimony related to his opinion that the 6141 Plan was no longer an ERISA plan since the employees were no longer employees within the meaning of ERISA as a result of the 1991 closure of the Pineville plant. As we stated above, the district court correctly ruled that this opinion was inaccurate as a matter of law. We refuse to reconsider the district court's determination of prejudice and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting Grasso's testimony.