to read from the lab reports during their closing arguments. There was no unimpeachable expert testimony as Central Baptist contends because the testimony was limited to reading from the lab reports. Moreover, questions concerning the scope of evidence are left to the discretion of the trial court to determine whether to admit and exclude evidence. An abuse of discretion occurs when a “trial judge’s decision [is] arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” The trial court was in the best position to determine whether to limit the scope of Ms. Apple-gate’s testimony and discovering no apparent abuse of di Maggard v. McKelvey, 627 S.W.2d 44, 49 (Ky.App.1981); Butts v. Watts, 290 S.W.2d 777, 778 (Ky.1956). 10 . Poe v. Rice, 706 S.W.2d 5 (Ky.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Cf. Greathouse v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Trust
holding that where defendants assertion depends on proof to be offered at trial summary judgment is inappropriate holding that when a plaintiff seeking an injunction raises a genuine issue of fact material to the defendant governments claim regarding its justification for a policy summary judgment is inappropriate holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists holding the conflict in expert declarations created a genuine issue of materi al fact that made summary judgment inappropriate holding summary judgment inappropriate to resolve an essentially procedural conflict