Correct. I don't know the basis for the ruling, but apparently it was pursuant to a pretrial Daubert motion which is named after a SCOTUS case from years ago, 1993, I think, and sets forth what the proponent of expert testimony must be able to establish in order for expert testimony to be admitted. Most states have, more or less, adopted it.Actually I went back and found that there was a pretrial ruling that he could not testify to anything like I asked. Seems pretty stupid.