Opinion ID: 2981353
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Testimony of Dale Olson

Text: Plaintiffs argue that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded Olson’s testimony regarding the cost of repairing the Model Home. Rulings on the admissibility of evidence are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Greenwell, 184 F.3d at 495. Plaintiffs contend that the district court excluded Olson’s testimony because of Olson’s use of the word “guesstimate” and a mistaken belief that Olson’s testimony was purely speculation. Plaintiffs argue that Olson, as an expert, is qualified to estimate the cost of his work, and it should have been up to the jury to weigh the evidence. The district court excluded Olson’s testimony because it found that Olson could not offer his expert opinion without a proper foundation. When Plaintiffs asked Olson about the cost of repairing the Model Home, Defendants objected. The district court responded: There was a motion in limine on [the speculative nature of Olson’s testimony with respect to the cost of repairs to the Model Home]. When I ruled on it, I said that you had to very carefully lay the foundation for how he came up with this entire estimate before you could ask him for a number, because the debate on the motion in limine was the fact that he sort of used the phrase a guesstimate in his deposition when he said how he came up with his numbers as it relates to how much drywall [he would] have to remove. And I was very specific when I told you that you had to lay the foundation. And when yesterday you tried to start out [with Olson’s repair bid], I told you that's not appropriate . . . . .... . . . There is always some estimate that has to go in [to a contractor’s bid for work], but that's very different than pure speculation . . . . .... 16 . . . He said in his deposition, whether he meant it or not, he used the word guesstimate. That is not sufficient for an expert opinion. Expert testimony is admissible, at the discretion of district court, if the witness is sufficiently qualified, the testimony is relevant, and the testimony is reliable. In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 528-29 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702). “The task for the district court in deciding whether an expert's opinion is reliable is not to determine whether it is correct, but rather to determine whether it rests upon a reliable foundation, as opposed to, say, unsupported speculation.” Id. at 529-30. From the district court’s explanation, it is clear that the district court did not find Olson’s opinion to rest on a reliable foundation. The only evidence Plaintiffs provide to undermine the district court’s determination is Olson’s deposition testimony indicating that the possibility of removing whole walls or whole sections of walls was the basis of his estimate. This statement, by itself, is not sufficient to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion when in determining that the foundation for testimony regarding the total cost of the work was not laid. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s decision to exclude Olson’s testimony.