Doe et al v. Vermilion Parish School Board et al

Filing 85

MEMORANDUM RULING ON EXCLUSION OF EXHIBITS re 65 MOTION to Exclude filed by David Dupuis, Randy Schexnayder, Vermilion Parish School Board. For the reasons stated in the ruling, the motion to exclude the listed exhibits made by the VPSBis denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Michael Hill on 2/4/10. (crt,Roaix, G)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA L A F A Y E T T E -O P E L O U S A S DIVISION J A N E DOE, as next best friend to her minor daughters JOAN DOE a n d JILL DOE V ER SU S * C I V I L ACTION NO. 09-1565

*

J U D G E HAIK M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HILL

V E R M I L IO N PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, * E T AL.

M E M O R A N D U M RULING ON EXCLUSION OF EXHIBITS T h e defendants, the Vermilion Parish School Board, Randy Schexnayder and D a v id Dupuis, ("VPSB") have filed a motion to exclude various exhibits listed by the p la in tif f s for use at the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction scheduled for F e b ru a ry 8, 2010. [Record Doc. 65]. The plaintiffs oppose the motion. [Record Doc. 71]. The undersigned has previously ruled on some of the objections filed by the VPSB to the p la in tif f s' evidence. [Record Doc. 82]. This ruling addresses the objections to the p r o p o s e d trial exhibits to be offered by the plaintiffs. A . Relevance T h e defendants object to various exhibits on the grounds of relevance. The Court h a s examined each of the subject exhibits. Essentially, the VPSB argues that any exhibit re la tin g to the 2008-2009 program are irrelevant. For those reasons set out in my prior r u lin g , evidence relating to the 2008-2009 program is relevant, and therefore these e x h ib its are also relevant.

It is certainly true that some of these exhibits (15, 18 and 54) would appear to be, a t best, only marginally relevant; the undersigned doubts whether these exhibits will be s p e c if ic a lly used at the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. Nevertheless, th e exhibits appear to be at least marginally relevant, and, especially in a hearing c o n d u c te d by the court without a jury, admissible. The trial court is fully able to assign th e appropriate weight to each of these exhibits. B . Hearsay objections T h e defendants argue that exhibits 44, 51 and 52 are inadmissible as they contain h e a rsa y. Of course, FRE 801 defines hearsay as statements made by a declarant, while n o t testifying, which are offered in evidence to "prove the truth of the matter asserted." E x h ib its 51 and 52 appear to be books or articles written by proponents of single-sex e d u c a tio n . The plaintiffs apparently dispute the truth of many of the assertions contained in these books (as opposed to offering them to prove the truth of the assertions) and, a c co rd in g ly, those assertions are not hearsay pursuant to FRE 801. W ith regard to exhibit 44, this writing is relied upon, in part, by the plaintiffs' e x p e rt, Dr. Halpern. Additionally, this writing appears to fit within the "learned treatise" e x c e p tio n to the hearsay rule. FRE 803(18). Accordingly, the hearsay objections to these exhibits are not well founded, and are o v e rru le d .

-2-

C . Relation to Dr. Dupuis' dissertation F inally, the VPSB objects to exhibits 51 and 52 as they "concern" Dr. Dupuis's d iss e rta tio n . The undersigned is not sure that the defendants' objections are fully u n d e rs to o d by the Court. However, it appears to the undersigned that these writings s u p p o rt the conclusions reached by Dr. Dupuis. If the Court is correct, then it is clear that w ritin g s on which Dr. Dupuis relied, in whole or in part, to reach his conclusions are c le a rly relevant to the accuracy of his conclusions, and the rigor of his work. Accordingly, these writings are relevant and admissible. F o r the above reasons, the motion to exclude the listed exhibits made by the VPSB is denied. F e b ru a ry 4, 2010, Lafayette, Louisiana.

-3-