One of the motions I'm preparing is a motion to exclude opposing party's supposed "expert." I sure as heck wish there was an ER 707 which said, "experts that are stupid as shit shall be excluded from providing expert testimony." If there was one, it totally be applicable to this case.
Q: Do you have any specialized training or education in [relevant construction field]?
A: Not really. I did take a night class in car mechanics.
Q: So, if I heard you correctly, you plan on providing an opinion regarding the allegedly defective siding and roofing on this project, correct?
Q: So what, in your opinion, are the defects with regards to siding and roofing?
A: I have no idea what the issue with the siding is. And the roof, well, I have no clue what's going on there.
Q: So, what are you going to testify as to the standard of care of the [relevant party] in this case?
A: What do you mean by "standard of care?"
Q: I mean the level of conduct they are required to follow, their workmanship or professionalism.
A: I guess, well, I'm still not sure what you mean. Like whether they did all the work in their contract?
Q: I mean, are you going to say whether or not they performed their work in a professional, or workmanlike manner?
A: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you are asking.
An expert who has no idea what a standard of care is? OMG.
Q: Are you going to testify about causation?
A: I'm, sorry I don't understand.
Q: Are you going to testify about whether a party's work caused the alleged damages?
A: I'm sorry, I still don't get it. Can you take the legalese out of your question.
And my personal favorite:
Q: How did you come to your conclusion that the [relevant pary] used sufficient and not excessive force in pressure washing the building? Did you do any calculations or analysis?
A: Well, that's just what I think and I spray my house with a hose all the time-- I do it to kill bees.