Court Opinion

ID: 9926975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 22:06:16.222241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:32.383534
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

              COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

KEVIN       COPE AND      ROGER LAINE                                                      NO.     2023 CW          1180

VERSUS

BOARD OF         SUPERVISORS OF                                                        JANUARY          18,     2024
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
AND A&M       COLLEGE,         TEACHERS'
RETIREMENT          SYSTEM OF
LOUISIANA

In Re:            Teachers'          Retirement             System of             Louisiana,            applying         for
                  supervisory              writs,            19th       Judicial                 District           Court,
                  Parish of East Baton Rouge,                           No.       633758.

BEFORE:          THERIOT,           PENZATO,      AND        GREENE,         JJ.

        WRIT        GRANTED.           The        district             court's             September           8,     2023
judgment         granting       the motion             in     limine         to    exclude         expert       witness
filed       by    plaintiffs           is    reversed.                 A     district             court       has     wide
discretion          in   determining           whether            to    allow          a   witness        to    testify
as     an    expert,          and    its     judgment             will       not       be        disturbed          by     an
appellate           court      unless        it        is     clearly            erroneous.              LaBauve           v.
Louisiana Medical Mutual                     Ins.       Co.,       2021-00763 ( La.                 4/13/22),            347
So.3d        724,       728.         La.     Code           Evict.      art.        702          requires           expert
witnesses         to     be    both    qualified             by    knowledge,              skill,        experience,
training,         or     education          and    to       offer       testimony            that        is    relevant
and    reliable.          We     find      the     district            court        abused         its    discretion
in     excluding          the        expert's           testimony.                  Defendants'                proposed
expert,       Keith       Brainard,          is    qualified               under       Article          702    for       the
purpose       for which defendants                     intend to             introduce            his    testimony:
 state        retirement            plans,        including                the     duties          of     those          who
administer          and       manage       such        plans"          for    employees             of    state          and
local       governments.             Any "    shaky          but       admissible            evidence"          may        be
attacked         through "          vigorous           cross-examination,                        presentation              of
contrary         evidence,           and     careful             instruction                on    the     burden           of
proof [.]"          Blair       v.    Coney,           2019-00795 (              La.       4/3/20),       340        So. 3d
775,    781,      quoting       Daubert           v.    Merrell         Dow        Pharmaceuticals,                  Inc.,
509 U.S.         579,    596,       113 S.Ct.          2786,      2798,       125 L.Ed.2d 469 ( 1993).

                                                        MRT
                                                        AHP
                                                            HG

COURT       OF APPEAL,         FIRST CIRCUIT

       DEPUTY       CLERK OF COURT
              FOR THE         COURT