Ellena v. Standard Insurance Company et al

Filing 167

ORDER re Testimony of Steven Prater.. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 1/16/2014. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CASSAUNDRA ELLENA,

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10

Plaintiff,
v.

11
STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY,
12
Defendant.
13
14

) Case No. 12-5401 SC
)
) ORDER RE: TESTIMONY OF STEVEN
) PRATER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15
16

The Court held a pretrial conference in this matter on January

17

10, 2014.

18

referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation as

19

to specific testimony of the Plaintiff's expert, Steven Prater.

20

The Court hereby VACATES that Order.

21

Order on Defendant's motion in limine, ECF No. 163, Prater may

22

offer testimony that embraces the issue of bad faith, but he may

23

not give opinions as to legal conclusion on the issue.

24

provides additional guidance on Prater's testimony below.

25

At the hearing, the Court ordered that the case be

Consistent with the Court's

The Court

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, "[e]xpert testimony

26

is properly admissible when it serves to assist the trier of fact

27

in understanding the evidence or determine a fact in issue."

28

United States v. Kuiken, 198 F. App'x 643, 646 (9th Cir. 2006).

An

1

expert's opinion "is not objectionable just because it embraces an

2

ultimate issue."

3

testimony is not proper for issues of law.

4

analyze factual evidence.

5

."

6

1996).

Fed. R. Evid. 702(a).

However, "[e]xpert
Experts interpret and

They do not testify about the law . . .

Crow Tribe of Indians v. Racicot, 87 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir.

Plaintiff offers Prater's testimony to assist the jury in

7
8

determining whether Defendant violated established insurance

9

standards when it evaluated Plaintiff's disability claim.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Defendant moves to preclude Prater from testifying because his

11

opinions constitute legal conclusions and cross the line between

12

expert and advocate.

13

Court agrees that some of Prater's intended testimony crosses the

14

line.

15

testifying altogether, since some of his testimony may assist the

16

jury.

Having reviewed Prater's expert report, the

However, the Court declines to exclude Prater from

Many passages from Prater's expert report read like a summary

17
18

judgment brief.

At one point, Prater argues: "There's an abundance

19

of evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that

20

punitive damages are warranted in this case in order to punish,

21

deter, and change [Defendant's conduct]."

22

Rep.") at 6.

23

will preclude Prater from making such statements at trial.

24

Prater's job is to provide the jury with information that will help

25

them arrive at a verdict, not to tell them what that verdict should

26

be.

27

analyze disability case law.

28

expert's, to instruct the jury on the law of the case.

ECF No. 67-2 ("Prater

These statements are legal conclusions and the Court

Prater's report also contains a number of paragraphs that
It is the Court's duty, not the

2

Further, Prater's report addresses a number of issues that do

1
2

not require scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge

3

to understand.

4

working person who used her best efforts to do her job in a

5

professional manner."

6

disability benefits have been approved by the State of California,

7

the County of Sonoma, and the federal government should weigh in

8

favor of a finding that Plaintiff was disabled; however, he does

9

not opine that this is industry practice.

He opines that Plaintiff "is a conscientious, hard-

Id. at 8.

He states that the fact that

While these facts may be

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

relevant, it is unclear why Prater needs to explain them to the

11

jury.

Accordingly, Prater may not offer such testimony at trial.
In short, the Court intends to limit Prater's testimony to

12
13

insurance standards, practices, and procedures.

Prater may testify

14

about whether Defendant's conduct was inconsistent with those

15

standard practices.

16

concerning factual matters that do not require specialized

17

knowledge to understand.

18

law.

19

practices of Defendant and his specialized knowledge of the

20

insurance industry.

21

provide a general opinion on whether all of Defendants practices,

22

taken together, rise to the level of bad faith conduct.

However, he may not argue to the jury

Nor may he offer opinions concerning the

Each of Prater's opinions should be tethered to the specific

He may not weigh the evidence for the jury or

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

January 16, 2014

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

3