Opinion ID: 579835
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Exclusion of Portions of Expert Testimony

Text: 38 Finally, the underwriters argue that the district court erred when it excluded a portion of their expert witness's testimony by which they attempted to impeach the qualifications of Johnson's surveyor. Johnson's surveyor had set the Kingfisher's market value at $225,000. The underwriters' expert would have testified that Johnson's surveyor's company was not registered with the National Association of Marine Surveyors and was impossible to locate. The district court rejected this testimony. 39 A trial court has broad discretion in admitting and excluding expert testimony and its decisions will not be reversed unless manifestly erroneous. Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1484 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 275 (1991). In this bench trial, we cannot say it was manifest error for the trial judge not to hear that Johnson's expert's company was not registered with the National Association of Marine Surveyors. Even if the district court had admitted this testimony, it could have given it such weight, if any, as the court deemed appropriate. 40 The record shows that the district court carefully considered all of the evidence before it, engaged in lengthy colloquy with counsel to be sure the court understood the parties' arguments and the significance of their relevant evidence. There is no indication in the record before us that the excluded portion of the underwriters' expert's testimony would have had any bearing whatsoever on the district court's findings and decision.