In what circumstances have courts upheld the exclusion of expert testimony in a civil case?

In People v. Jones (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1084 (Jones), the court similarly upheld the exclusion of expert testimony because there was other evidence that substantially corroborated the eyewitness identification. (Id. at p. 1112.) In particular, five witnesses corroborated the eyewitness identification. The court acknowledged that all five were impeachable due to bias and their prior inconsistent statements; and it noted that three were also accomplices to the crime, whose testimony itself needed to be corroborated. (Ibid.) However, those weaknesses did not prevent the evidence from providing sufficient corroboration of the eyewitness identification to render expert testimony unnecessary.