Judge Properly Excluded Expert Testimony After Concluding Claimed Damages Were Speculative.

A dental implant company sued a university for breach of contract involving clinical tests for a new implant the company patented. The implant company sought damages ranging from $200 million to over $1 billion. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court excluded as speculative the proffered testimony of an expert to that effect. The appellate court found the trial court erred in excluding the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony in that it was “better left for the jury’s assessment.” In affirming the decision of the trial court, the California Supreme Court stated “the trial court has the duty to act as a ‘gatekeeper’ to exclude speculative expert testimony.” The Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s decision based upon an abuse of discretion, to which great deference is given to a trial judge, not based upon a conclusion of law, which it would have reviewed de novo. Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California  (Cal. Sup. Ct.; November 26, 2012) 55 Cal.4th 747.