Meadows v. Reeves, et al.

Filing 71

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motions for Appointment of an Expert Witness 65 & 69 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/10/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHANN MEADOWS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
DR. REEVES,

15

Case No. 1:11-cv-00257-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT
OF AN EXPERT WITNESS
(Docs. 65, 69)

Defendant.
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Dr. Reeves alleging he

16
17

sexually assaulted her during a gynecological examination in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

18

(See Docs. 28, 42.) On October 21, 2014 and January 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed motions for

19

appointment of an expert witness.1 (Docs. 65, 69.) Plaintiff contends a gynecologist is needed to

20

determine whether the manner in which Dr. Reeves conducted the examination was proper. Id.

21

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
Federal Rule of Evidence 706 provides for court appointment of an expert witness upon a

22
23

party's motion or on its own volition. AIf scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will

24

assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness

25

qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto

26

in the form of an opinion or otherwise . . . @ Fed. R. Evid. 702. The Court has the discretion to

27

1

28

Though more than sufficient time has lapsed, Defendant has not responded to either of these motions. The motions
are deemed submitted. L.R. 230(l).

1

1

appoint an expert and to apportion costs, including the apportionment of costs to one side, Fed. R.

2

Evid. 706; Ford ex rel. Ford v. Long Beach Unified School Dist., 291 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir.

3

2002); Walker v. American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th

4

Cir. 1999), however, where the costs would likely be apportioned to the government, the Court

5

should exercise caution. Plaintiff=s pro se, in forma pauperis status alone is not grounds for the

6

appointment of an expert witness to assist Plaintiff with her case and Rule 706 is not a meant to

7

provide an avenue to avoid the in forma pauperis statute and its prohibition against using public

8

funds to pay for the expenses of witnesses. Manriquez v. Huchins, No. 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM

9

PC, 2012 WL 5880431, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) (quotation marks and citations omitted),

10

nor does Rule 706 contemplate court appointment and compensation of an expert witness as an

11

advocate for Plaintiff, Faletogo v. Moya, No. 12cv631 GPC (WMc), 2013 WL 524037, at *2

12

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2013) (quotation marks omitted).

13

The appointment of an expert witness under Rule 706 is intended to benefit the trier of

14

fact, not a particular litigant, and here, the medical issue raised by this litigation, at least at this

15

point, does not appear to be of such complexity that the Court requires the assistance of a neutral

16

expert at this time. Faletogo, 2013 WL 524037, at *2; Bontemps v. Lee, No. 2:12-cv-0771 KJN

17

P, 2013 WL 417790, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013); Honeycutt, 2011 WL 6301429, at *1;

18

Wilds, 2011 WL 737616, at *4; Gamez v. Gonzalez, No. 08cv1113 MJL (PCL), 2010 WL

19

2228427, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2010). Moreover, there are currently no pending matters in

20

which the Court requires special assistance, Ford, 291 F.3d at 1090; Walker, 180 F.3d at 1071.

21

However, Plaintiff is not foreclosed from requesting appointment of an expert witness if/when the

22

issues in this action are presented to the trier of fact.

23
24

Accordingly, Plaintiff=s motions for the appointment of an expert witness are DENIED
without prejudice.

25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 10, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2