Hammler v. Hernandez et al

Filing 56

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice "Objection to Experts" [Doc. No. 50 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 3/5/2020.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No.: 18cv259-CAB-MDD Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE “OBJECTION TO EXPERTS” [Doc. No. 50] J. HERNANDEZ, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis, filed his complaint on February 2, 2018, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 19 This case is currently proceeding on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants retaliated against 20 him in violation of the First Amendment. On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed an 21 “Objection to Experts,” which this Court has deemed a Daubert or in limine motion. 22 [Doc. No. 51.] On February 18, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s 23 Objection. [Doc. No. 54.] Plaintiff did not file a reply. 24 DISCUSSION 25 In the Objection, Plaintiff objects to the two witnesses listed in Defendants’ 26 Disclosure of Expert Witnesses, J. Martinez and E. Frijas. [See Doc. No. 54 at 7-10.] J. 27 Martinez is a correctional lieutenant at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD). 28 [Doc. No. 54 at 8, ¶1.] E. Frijas is a correctional counselor at RJD. [Doc. No. 54 at 8, 1 18cv259-CAB-MDD 1 ¶2.] Both individuals are listed on the Disclosure as Non-Retained Expert Witnesses. 2 [Doc. No. 54 at 8.] Unretained experts are persons who may be asked for expert opinion 3 testimony at trial but who are not engaged or employed by a party to testify. Downey v. 4 Bob’s Discount Furniture Holdings, Inc., 633 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2011). Unretained 5 experts are those persons with percipient knowledge who happen to be an expert. It is 6 common to list witnesses such as police officers or government investigators as 7 unretained experts on a disclosure. See Phillips & Stevenson, RUTTER GROUP PRAC. 8 GUIDE: FEDERAL CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2019) §11:386. 9 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert opinion evidence must be both 10 reliable and relevant. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589- 11 91, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 567 (9th 12 Cir. 2010). The district court functions as a gatekeeper, determining the relevance and 13 reliability of expert testimony and deciding whether it will be admitted. Ellis v. Costco 14 Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 982 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). An expert is 15 generally not permitted to opine on an ultimate issue of fact except in limited 16 circumstances, since such opinions may “invade the province of” the jury. See 17 Nationwide Transport Finance v. Cass Information Systems, Inc., 523 F.3d 1051, 1060 18 (9th Cir. 2008) (“evidence that merely tells the jury what result to reach is not sufficiently 19 helpful to the trier of fact to be admissible”). 20 In the Objection, Plaintiff raises legitimate concerns about whether these non- 21 retained experts should be allowed to give opinions that may be in the province of the 22 jury or may lack foundation. [Doc. No. 50 at 1-2.] However, as Defendants point out, at 23 this point in the litigation, it is premature for the Court to rule on such issues, as 24 discovery is ongoing, Defendants have not proffered any specific opinion testimony, and 25 no dispositive motions have been filed. It is difficult for the Court to rule on the 26 admissibility of such testimony until more specificity is provided. 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 18cv259-CAB-MDD 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Objection to Experts is DENIED 3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff refiling the motion in conjunction with any 4 dispositive motions or prior to trial. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: March 5, 2020 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 18cv259-CAB-MDD

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?