Opinion ID: 2971639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expert Testimony of Mr. Samuel Flowers

Text: The exclusion of the testimony of Mr. Samuel Flowers, a Kentucky state fire marshal, as a sanction for failing to appear at his deposition was harmless regardless of whether the district court ruled properly in excluding the testimony. When Mr. Hartley called Mr. Flowers to testify, counsel for Travelers objected claiming prejudice. The parties had agreed to divide responsibility for noticing and arranging the depositions of fact witnesses. Counsel for Mr. Hartley noticed Mr. Flowers deposition, but when he failed to appear counsel for Mr. Hartley did not reschedule his deposition. When Mr. Hartley called Mr. Flowers’ at trial, the district court excluded his testimony ruling, “If [Mr. Flowers] didn’t come to discovery he ain’t coming - 10 - No. 03-6208 Hartley v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., et al. today.”6 However, the district court considered Mr. Flowers opinion as the district court referred to the testimony in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The fact that the district court considered Mr. Flowers testimony renders harmless any error in excluding the testimony. 3. The Exclusion of Evidence Associated with Robert Harshman The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the deposition testimony of Robert Harshman or photographs taken by him. Because it does not appear from the record that Mr. Hartley attempted to introduce any deposition testimony of Mr. Harshman, but rather only the photographs, Mr. Hartley’s argument that the district court erred in excluding Mr. Harshman’s deposition testimony is without merit. Similarly, while the district court’s reasoning is not clear, Mr. Hartley could not produce Mr. Harshman at trial to authenticate the photographs, nor did he attempt any other means of authentication. Like other evidence, photographs must be authenticated prior to being admitted into evidence. See FED. R. EVID. 901; United States v. Blackwell, 694 F.2d 1325, 1330 (D.C. Cir. 1982). The district court was within its discretion when it refused to accept the unauthenticated photographs into evidence as authentication is a necessary precondition to admissibility. See Blackwell, 694 F.2d at 1329-30. 6 After the district court excluded Mr. Flowers testimony, counsel for Mr. Hartley took his testimony by avowal. Testimony by avowal is the equivalent of an offer of proof under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Compare KY. R. CIV. P. 43.10 with FED. R. EVID. 103(a)(2). The purpose is to preserve the substance of the excluded evidence for appeal. - 11 - No. 03-6208 Hartley v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., et al.