S.Ct. 2786. I will therefore deny Factory Mutual’s motion to exclude the expert report and testimony of John Kopfer. TAMKO filed its own motion to exclude the expert testimony of Anirban Basu and David Elmore. It argues that the testimony of these experts is inadmissible because neither came up with his own damages calculation, but rather each expert’s testimony would merely critique the methodology used and assumptions made by Kopfer. Impeachment of an expert witness through contradictory testimony by another qualified expert is permitted under the federal rules of evidence, and it actually supports admissibility of the original expert’s opinion because it presents a proper question of credibility for the jury. See, e.g., EFCO Corp. v. Symons Corp., 219 F.3d 734, 739 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The testimony of Basu and Elmore may be
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify holding that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing a defendants surprise fact witness to testify because the plaintiff did not request a continuance holding the expert witnesses were protected by witness immunity to ensure expert objectivity holding that an expert is not competent to testify as to statutory interpretation