Opinion ID: 677610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: AY's horticultural evidence.

Text: 54 First, AY claims that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of Kirk Clark, an experienced nurseryman who would have testified that the marketing plans of the 1985-I partnerships were reasonable. The district court determined that Clark's experience and training was not in the area of the tropical plants grown by Agretech, and that therefore he could not testify as an expert on such plants. On the basis of this determination, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding his testimony. 55 Second, AY claims that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the deposition testimony and written report of Ian Baldwin, a nursery consultant for Agretech. According to AY, this evidence would have countered DeNeve's observations about the overcrowding of Agretech's plant-growing facilities. However, DeNeve's testimony was specific and expert; he noted that [t]he plant material was too close together and [t]he plants were overgrown for the pots in which they were planted. In contrast, Baldwin's testimony represented the general observations of a percipient witness; for example, he noted that Agretech was a large company ... doing a better quality and production job than I had seen in much, much smaller facilities. Because this testimony was so general, it would not have directly contradicted DeNeve's, and therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding it as irrelevant. 56 Finally, AY challenges the district court's refusal to let Richard Garcia, the owner and president of Agretech, testify as to certain bench space and expense calculations made by trial counsel Michael Rugen with information provided by Garcia. Because Garcia did not actually perform the calculations himself, Rugen would have had to testify to lay a foundation as to how they were prepared. However, the advocate-witness rule--which prohibits an attorney from appearing as both a witness and an advocate in the same litigation--prevented him from doing so. See United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 552-53 (9th Cir.1985). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the calculations into evidence.