Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sierra Pacific Industries

Filing 94

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 10/6/2010 DENYING 56 Motion to Exclude Deft's Designated Expert Gregory Sells filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Reader, L)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sierra Pacific Industries

Doc. 94

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 AHMED ELSHENAWY, 13 Plaintiff-Intervenor, 14 v. 15 SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ----oo0oo---Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude the testimony of Defendant's designated vocational rehabilitation expert, Gregory Sells. Plaintiff asks the Court to prevent ORDER EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, No. 2:08-cv-01470-MCE-DAD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MrSells from testifying on grounds that his proposed testimony is irrelevant. Plaintiff further contends, on an even more

fundamental basis, that Sells' testimony lacks any basis in specialized knowledge so that it would assist the jury in considering the issues presented by this case. Plaintiff cites the Court's function as gatekeeper with respect to admissibility in that regard. 1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff's claim that Mr. Sells' expected testimony is by nature so unreliable that it runs afoul of Daubert standards. Sells' credentials show that he has some

thirty-eight years of experience as a vocational rehabilitation counselor, and has been qualified as an expert on such issues some nineteen times since 2005. On the basis of that experience,

Mr. Sells is more than qualified to offer his opinion with respect to whether Elshenawy should have been able to find suitable employment following his termination, and how long that job search should reasonably have taken. That testimony is plainly relevant

with respect to whether Elshenawy properly mitigated his claimed damages, and may assist the jury in deciding this case. To the extent that Plaintiff claims that the basis for Sells' opinions are incomplete and/or erroneous, those contentions can adequately be addressed through vigorous crossexamination. They are not properly the subject of a motion to Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude

exclude his testimony altogether.

Sells' testimony (ECF No. 56) is accordingly DENIED.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 6, 2010

_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Because oral argument was not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). 2

1