## Facts

- Dr. Nicholas Angelopoulos sued Dr. Martin Hall and related entities connected to their medical practice arrangements, including Keystone Orthopedic Specialists, S.C., and WACHN, LLC.
- The case proceeded toward trial, where Hall planned to testify as a witness.
- Angelopoulos sought to call Dr. Michael Hartman to offer opinion testimony that Hall had a character for untruthfulness.
- Hartman and Hall had worked at the same practice, Keystone Orthopedic Specialists.
- Hartman had known Hall for approximately six months.
- During that period, Hartman spoke with Hall about once per week.
- Hall moved in limine to exclude Hartman’s proposed opinion testimony attacking Hall’s character for truthfulness.

## Issues

1. Whether Hartman’s six months of workplace acquaintance and roughly weekly conversations with Hall provided a sufficient foundation to admit Hartman’s opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a) that Hall had a character for untruthfulness.

## Decision

- The court denied Hall’s motion in limine to exclude Hartman’s Rule 608(a) opinion testimony.
- The court permitted Angelopoulos to present Hartman’s opinion testimony about Hall’s character for untruthfulness, leaving challenges to the strength of the foundation for cross-examination and for the jury’s evaluation.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a) allows a party to attack a witness’s credibility through reputation testimony or opinion testimony about the witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.
- A Rule 608(a) opinion witness must have enough familiarity with the target witness to form an opinion about the target’s character for truthfulness; the required foundation depends on the nature, duration, and frequency of contact.
- Workplace interaction over a meaningful period, including recurring conversations, can be sufficient to support an admissible opinion about a person’s character for truthfulness.
- Disputes about the depth of the relationship, possible bias, or the witness’s basis for the opinion generally affect weight rather than admissibility and are commonly addressed through cross-examination, not exclusion.

## Conclusion

The court held that Hartman’s roughly six months of working in the same practice as Hall and speaking with him about once per week provided an adequate foundation for Rule 608(a) opinion testimony that Hall had a character for untruthfulness, and it denied Hall’s motion in limine seeking to bar that credibility evidence.


Angelopoulos v. Keystone Orthopedic Specialists, S.C., Wachn, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77721 (2017)