Todd Ragsdale v. Stacy Timmer & Jacob Timmer

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Stacy and Jacob Timmer’s motion to exclude plaintiff Todd Ragsdale’s agricultural expert, David Kehler. The court held that Kehler was qualified and that his opinions concerning pasture rental rates, pasture condition, stocking rates, crop production, and custom-farming rates were sufficiently reliable and relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court also found that the late submission of Kehler’s supporting affidavit was harmless under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).

Holdings

1. An expert need not possess specialized experience addressing every precise subissue about which the expert testifies. Decades of relevant agricultural experience, education, and professional work may qualify an expert to offer opinions about pastureland and custom farming.
2. Non-scientific expert testimony may satisfy Rule 702 through a methodology grounded substantially in relevant professional experience and accepted practices in the field; the absence of every traditional Daubert factor does not require exclusion.
3. Expert testimony is relevant when it may help the trier of fact determine a fact in issue; the existence of contrary evidence does not make otherwise helpful expert testimony irrelevant.
4. Although plaintiff's use of Kehler's affidavit to support his report was untimely under Rule 26, exclusion was unwarranted because the violation was harmless.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Kehler was qualified under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to testify about pasture conditions, pasture rental rates, stocking rates, crop production, and custom-farming rates.
2. Whether Kehler's opinions were based on sufficiently reliable principles, methods, facts, and data under Rule 702.
3. Whether Kehler's opinions were relevant and would assist the court in determining disputed facts and potential damages.
4. Whether plaintiff's late-produced affidavit and related explanations of Kehler's opinions should be excluded under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37.

Disposition

other