Young v. LaPage et al

Filing 266

ORDER denying 258 Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Dr. Diane Al-Abduljalil, at this time. Dr. Al-Abduljalil will be permitted to testify, and the Court will decide, either during trial or afterwards, whether her testimony satisfi es the requirements of Rule 702. If it does satisfy those requirements, the Court will then give it whatever amount of weight it deserves. If it does not satisfy the requirements, the Court will then grant Plaintiffs Motion and strike the testimony, by Judge William J. Martinez on 2/12/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01513-WJM-CBS
JOHNATHAN YOUNG, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JASON BROCK,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS
OF DR. DIANE AL-ABDULJAILI

Plaintiff Johnathan Young, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant
Jason Brock (“Defendant”), an employee of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Department,
arising out of his pretrial detention in the El Paso County Jail during July 2010. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant used excessive force when moving Plaintiff to a special detention
room. (ECF No. 251 at 2-3.) A three-day bench trial is set to commence on March 17,
2014. (ECF No. 265.)
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Dr. Diane AlAbduljalil (“Motion”). (ECF No. 258.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is
DENIED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A district court must act as a “gatekeeper” in admitting or excluding expert
testimony. Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp., 400 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir. 2004). Admission of
expert testimony is governed by Rule 702, which provides:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may
testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the
testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the
testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods,
and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods
reliably to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
II. ANALYSIS
To qualify as an expert, the witness must possess such “knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education” in the particular field as to make it appear that his or
her opinion would rest on substantial foundation and would tend to aid the trier of fact in
its search for the truth. LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917, 928 (10th
Cir. 2004). Plaintiff argues that Dr. Al-Abduljalil specializes in addiction medicine, and is
therefore unqualified to offer opinions on the particular types of injuries that Plaintiff
suffered. (ECF No. 258 at 5-6.) Plaintiff also contends that Dr. Al-Abduljalil is not
qualified to offer opinions on the jail’s detention policies, and that Dr. Al-Abduljalil’s
testimony regarding whether Plaintiff reported his injuries to jail staff is not necessary to
assist the finder of fact. (Id. at 6-7.)
The primary purpose of the Court’s gatekeeping function is to protect juries from
unreliable or confusing scientific testimony, and these concerns are significantly lessened
in a bench trial. See Atty. Gen. of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d 769, 779 (10th
Cir. 2009) (citing Seaboard Lumber Co. v. United States, 308 F.3d 1283, 1302 (Fed. Cir.
2002)). Thus, trial courts conducting bench trials have the flexibility to admit proffered

2

expert testimony and to then decide during trial whether the evidence meets the
requirements of Daubert and Fed. R. Evid. 702. See id. at 780; see also Gonzales v.
Nat’l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 225 F.3d 620, 635 (6th Cir. 2000) (explaining that “district
courts conducting bench trials have substantial flexibility in admitting proffered expert
testimony at the front end, and then deciding for themselves during the course of trial
whether the evidence . . . deserves to be credited”); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex
Corp., 247 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1042 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (Posner, J., sitting by designation)
(because the primary purpose of Daubert is to protect juries from being “bamboozled by
technical evidence of dubious merit . . . in a bench trial it is an acceptable alternative to
admit evidence of borderline admissibility and give it the (slight) weight to which it is
entitled . . . . Daubert requires a binary choice—admit or exclude—and a judge in a
bench trial should have discretion to admit questionable technical evidence, though of
course he must not give it more weight than it deserves.”).
Based on the briefing submitted, the Court finds that the issues regarding Dr. AlAbduljalil’s testimony and the basis for her opinions are better suited to resolution at trial
through “[v]igorous cross-examination [and the] presentation of contrary evidence.”
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. The Court preliminarily finds that Dr. Al-Abduljalil’s experience
in correctional medicine—including the emergency aspects thereof—is sufficient to permit
her to testify about Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court also finds that Dr. Al-Abduljalil’s
testimony regarding the jail’s medical records is likely to assist the trier of fact. Finally, the
Court preliminarily finds that Dr. Al-Abduljalil is qualified to offer her opinions on whether
the jail’s policies cause her any concern as a medical physician with experience in

3

correction medicine. While the Court may ultimately disregard some of Dr. Al-Abduljalil’s
testimony, the appropriate time to make that determination is after having heard the
evidence (including Defendant’s cross-examination of Dr. Al-Abduljalil) at trial. See Tyson
Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d at 780 (district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting
evidence during a bench trial and then later finding it unreliable and not giving it
substantial weight).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of
Dr. Diane Al-Abduljalil (ECF No. 258) is DENIED at this time. Dr. Al-Abduljalil will be
permitted to testify, and the Court will decide, either during trial or afterwards, whether her
testimony satisfies the requirements of Rule 702. If it does satisfy those requirements,
the Court will then give it whatever amount of weight it deserves. If it does not satisfy the
requirements, the Court will then grant Plaintiff’s Motion and strike the testimony.
Dated this 12th day of February, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

4