Opinion ID: 1034991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Validity of the In Limine Order

Text: Finally, Warger argues the district court erred by not allowing his accident reconstruction expert to testify whether either of the drivers' conduct violated South Dakota law. We review a district court's decision concerning the admission of expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. Miller v. Baker Implement Co., 439 F.3d 407, 412 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Peitzmeier v. Hennessy Indus., Inc., 97 F.3d 293, 296 (8th Cir. 1996)). The district court excluded such testimony because it would have been based on a traffic officer's report it had found inadmissible. Of course, expert testimony need not always be based on admissible facts or data. Fed. R. Evid. 703. However, expert testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. Fed. R. Evid. 702(c). Because the district court found the officer's report not only inadmissible, but also unreliable, allowing such testimony would have contravened Rule 702(c). Although the court did not allow experts to testify regarding South Dakota law, it provided such information to the jury during final instructions. Thus, the jurors were informed on the rules of the road and were allowed to make their own decisions based on facts and testimony the court found reliable. The court's in limine order did not amount to an abuse of discretion. -9-