Othon v. Wesleyan University

Filing 170

ORDER denying without prejudice 164 Motion to Preclude. See attached order. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 7/10/2020. (Beyerlein, Alexis)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CHRISTINA OTHON,
Plaintiff,
v.
WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:18-CV-00958 (KAD)

July 10, 2020

ORDER
RE: MOTION TO PRECLUDE (ECF NO. 164)
Kari A. Dooley, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is defendant Wesleyan University’s (the “Defendant”) motion to
preclude the opinion and testimony of Dr. Susan Basow, the proposed expert witness of the
Plaintiff, Christina Othon (the “Plaintiff”).
While Dr. Basow has been disclosed along with her expert report, she has not yet been
deposed and the expert discovery period has not concluded. The Plaintiff’s expert witness
disclosure reveals that Dr. Basow will offer opinion testimony regarding, inter alia, the existence
and impact of gender bias in student teaching evaluations. The Defendant asserts that Dr. Basow’s
disclosed opinions and report are irrelevant under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
(“FRE”) for two reasons — first, because the discovery has demonstrated that the student teaching
evaluations were not the basis for the denial of tenure, and, second, because the opinions relate
only to the now dismissed claims brought pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments Act
of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Alternatively, the Defendant seeks preclusion under FRE 403.
The Plaintiff counters that Dr. Basow’s anticipated testimony goes beyond the impact of the
student teaching evaluations and that, in any event, her opinions are directly probative of the
remaining claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (“Title

VII”) and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-51 et seq.
(“CFEPA”).
Although there are circumstances under which a motion to preclude the opinion of an
expert witness may be properly considered prior to the close of discovery; see, e.g., New Colt
Holding Corp. v. RJG Holdings of Fla., Inc., No. 02-cv-00173 (PCD), 2003 WL 23508131, at *1
n.2 (D. Conn. Aug. 11, 2003); this case does not present such a circumstance. The Amended
Complaint is replete with detailed allegations concerning gender bias in the Defendant’s Physics
Department, the improper use of student teaching evaluations, and the gender bias inherent in the
tenure review process. These allegations are expressly incorporated by reference into the
Plaintiff’s Title VII and CFEPA claims. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges in Count One (“Title VII
– Discrimination”) and Count Five (“CFEPA – Discrimination”) that she “was negatively
impacted by Defendant’s reliance on the gender biased teaching evaluations.” (Compl. at Count
One, ¶ 140; id. at Count Five, ¶ 139.) The expert disclosure identifies Dr. Basow’s opinion as
bearing on these allegations. Dr. Basow has not been deposed so the basis of her opinions and the
precise nature and scope of her opinions have not been further examined. Accordingly, it would
be premature for the Court to determine the issue of whether or to what extent Dr. Basow’s
anticipated testimony is admissible under either FRE 702 or FRE 403, and the Court offers no
opinion on either issue at this juncture. The Defendant is free to renew its motion prior to trial and
after the close of expert discovery.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 10th day of July 2020.
/s/ Kari A. Dooley
KARI A. DOOLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2