Harris v. J.B. Robinson Jewelers
627 F.3d 235
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- Harris alleges Robinson replaced her pink center diamond with a smaller colorless diamond during a resizing in 2002 and police reports followed; the district court granted summary judgment against Harris for lack of admissible evidence; Harris submitted deposition and three lay witness affidavits asserting the original diamond was pink; Robinson relied on expert Fuller opining the current diamond is likely original; the magistrate and district court excluded the lay testimony as Rule 701 lay opinion; the Sixth Circuit reverses and remands for further proceedings.
- Harris purchased the ring in 1973 without documentation of stone size/color; she kept the ring for 29 years and then claimed changes after resizing; Harris’s witnesses claim the original diamond was pink; Fuller’s report details ring type, cutting era, and impracticality of substituting a 2.35-carat pink diamond in the same setting.
- Robinson removed the case based on diversity and amount in controversy; Robinson moved for summary judgment on grounds the diamond was returned and evidence did not create a factual dispute; Harris opposed with deposition and lay affidavits; the district court granted summary judgment, finding the lay testimony inadmissible.
- The panel held Harris presented admissible lay testimony and affidavits creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding diamond replacement; the court concluded the district court erred in excluding lay testimony under Rule 701 and reversed/remanded for further proceedings.
- Dissent would uphold summary judgment, arguing the overall record does not permit a reasonable jury to find for Harris under Supreme Court standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris's deposition and affidavits create a genuine issue | Harris argues evidence shows replacement. | Robinson contends no admissible evidence supports replacement. | Yes; creates genuine issue. |
| Whether lay testimony on color is admissible under Rule 701 | Lay witnesses may credibly describe color observed. | Color testimony requires expert testimony. | Admissible lay testimony. |
| Whether the district court properly excluded lay testimony | Exclusion was erroneous. | Exclusion was appropriate under Rule 701. | Exclusion reversed (error). |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on the diamond-replacement claim | Record shows genuine issue of replacement. | Record shows no genuine issue. | Remanded for further proceedings; not precluded on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Churchwell v. Bluegrass Marine, Inc., 444 F.3d 898 (6th Cir. 2006) (lay testimony sufficient for issue of appearance/identity based on perception)
- Head v. Glacier Nw. Inc., 413 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2005) (lay testimony may establish a genuine issue of fact)
- Britton v. U.S.S. Great Lakes Fleet, Inc., 302 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2002) (lay testimony may create factual disputes about conditions or events open to perception)
- Niemi v. NHK Spring Co., 543 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2008) (affidavits and self-serving statements may be considered; not automatically inadmissible)
- Rushing v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 185 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 1999) (self-serving assertions can be considered for admissibility/weight)
- Asplundh Mfg. Div. v. Benton Harbor Eng'g, 57 F.3d 1190 (3d Cir. 1995) (recognition of color/appearance within lay observation)
- United States v. White, 492 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2007) (lay vs. expert distinction under Rule 701)
- United States v. Strickler, 978 F.2d 1260 (6th Cir. 1992) (lay testimony identifying substances based on perception)
- United States v. Madison, 226 Fed.Appx. 535 (6th Cir. 2007) (lay testimony permissible when grounded in perception)
- Moore v. Philip Morris Cos., 8 F.3d 335 (6th Cir. 1993) (summary judgment requires significant probative evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue for trial)