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)
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?