Court Opinion

ID: 9843373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:37:31.142565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:44.290501
License: Public Domain

GRABER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would affirm the judgment and, therefore, respectfully dissent.
Under United States v. Figueroa-Lopez, 125 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir.1997), in this civil case we must consider whether the error in admitting expert opinion testimony as lay opinion testimony was harmless. As there, “the testimony in the instant case could have been admitted as expert opinion testimony,” id. at 1245, had Philip Leong been duly qualified, as he could have been.
Nor did the absence of the usual procedures under Rule 26(a)(2) prejudice Plaintiffs. Because Leong was an independent, not a retained, expert, Plaintiffs deposed him before trial, and they had the opportunity to subpoena all supporting data underlying Leong’s opinion, along with any other potentially relevant information.
In addition, some of the physical evidence supported a two-cartridge explanation for the accident.
In the circumstances, a retrial is no more than a second bite at the same apple. Accordingly, I dissent.