ESTATE OF TAMMY PEREZ v. MORGAN COUNTY SHERIFF et al

Filing 135

ORDER - granting 107 Motion to Exclude Expert Witness; Defendants' motion is GRANTED. Dr. Schnall's testimony as to (1) Anthis and Smith's "deliberate indifference" and as to (2) what would have been apparent to "reasonable officers" is ruled INADMISSIBLE. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/25/2018. Copy Mailed. (CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ESTATE OF TAMMY PEREZ,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MORGAN COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.
Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00645-SEB-DLP

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
(DKT. 107)
Plaintiff sued Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to the
serious medical needs of Tammy Perez (“Perez”), who died while she was in Defendants’
custody at the Morgan County, Indiana, jail (“the Jail”).
Now before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion to exclude expert
testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Defendants move to exclude the testimony
of Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Adrian M. Schnall (“Dr. Schnall”) as to Bobbie Anthis
(“Anthis”) and Jared Smith (“Smith”), two officers on duty at the Jail on the night Perez
died.
As the Seventh Circuit has explained,
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 allows an expert witness to
testify about a relevant scientific issue in contention if his
testimony is based on sufficient data and is the product of a
reliable methodology correctly applied to the facts of the
case. Under the Daubert framework, the district court is
tasked with determining whether a given expert is qualified to
1

testify in the case in question and whether his testimony is
scientifically reliable. “Whether a witness is qualified as an
expert can only be determined by comparing the area in
which the witness has superior knowledge, skill, experience,
or education with the subject matter of the witness's
testimony.” Carroll v. Otis Elevator Co., 896 F.2d 210, 212
(7th Cir.1990).
Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 616 (7th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
Here, Defendants seek to prevent Dr. Schnall, an endocrinologist, from testifying
about (1) whether Anthis and Smith were “deliberately indifferent” to Tammy’s medical
needs, and (2) what would or would not have been apparent to “reasonable officers” at
the Jail.
As noted, Plaintiff does not object to the exclusion of these opinions. Further,
“deliberate indifference” is a legal conclusion to which Dr. Schnall may not testify, and
Dr. Schnall has no demonstrated expertise in what would be apparent to reasonable Jail
officers. If, as we expect, that is simply coextensive with what would be apparent to a
reasonable person, it is not a matter for expert testimony of any description.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is granted.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above:
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
Dr. Schnall’s testimony as to (1) Anthis and Smith’s “deliberate indifference” and

2

as to (2) what would have been apparent to “reasonable officers” is ruled
INADMISSIBLE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

9/25/2018

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
WILLIAM J. BEGGS
Bunger & Robertson
226 S. College Avenue
Bloomington, IN 47404
William J. Beggs
BUNGER & ROBERTSON
[e-mail]
Carol A. Dillon
BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL, P.C.
[e-mail]
Adriana Katzen
BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL, PC
[e-mail]
Pamela G. Schneeman
STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER
[e-mail]
James S. Stephenson
STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER
[e-mail]
Richard A. Waples
WAPLES & HANGER
[e-mail]
3

4